Preamble

The House met at half-past Two o'clock

PRAYERS

[Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair]

PRIVATE BUSINESS

BRITISH RAILWAYS BILL (By Order)

Order for Second Reading read.

To be read a Second time on Tuesday next.

BRITISH RAILWAYS (SELBY) BILL (By Order)

Order for Second Reading read.

To be read a Second time on Thursday at Seven o'clock.

ORKNEY ISLANDS COUNCIL BILL (By Order)

SHEFFIELD GENERAL CEMETERY BILL (By Order)

Order for Second Reading read.

To be read a Second time on Tuesday next.

Oral Answers to Questions — MR. SPEAKER'S STATEMENT

Mr. Speaker: Before I call Question No. 1, I have a very brief statement to make. Question No. 1 can lead only to what I call a shot-in-the-dark question. Since Ministers are not able to transfer Questions directly related to their Departments, there is no reason for an hon. Member not placing on the Order Paper the Question that he really wants answered. Of course, the Prime Minister's Questions are different because the Prime Minister is able to transfer Questions.
I do not think that the ancient custom of our House with regard to Questions should be changed except by a conscious decision taken by the House as a whole. In any case, other hon. Members have a right to have notice of the real Question which is being addressed to the Minister.
Hon. Members know that there is no prescriptive right to be called to ask a supplementary question. I must inform the House that, in order to guard our long-established custom, I may well in future exercise the discretion given to me by the House with this type of Question.
The hon. Member for Christchurch and Lymington (Mr. Adley) had no notice of this statement, so I shall call him for his supplementary question.

Mr. Skinner: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. On the statement which you have just made, Mr. Speaker—

Mr. Speaker: Order. I shall gladly and willingly answer points of order on this matter at the end of Question Time, if the hon. Gentleman does not mind.

Mr. Adley: Mr. Speaker, I am most grateful to you for your guidance. Perhaps it would help if I advised you, as I intend to advise the House, that I told the Secretary of State as long ago as last Wednesday what would be the subject of my supplementary question to him.

Mr. Speaker: That was a secret. Questions are open.

Oral Answers to Questions — SOCIAL SERVICES

Secretary of State (Engagements)

Mr. Adley: asked the Secretary of State for Social Services if he will list his official engagements for 7th March.

The Secretary of State for Social Services (Mr. David Ennals): I shall be meeting informally the Chairman of the BMA Council and the Secretary of the Council.

Mr. Adley: In view of the fact that I told the right hon. Gentleman last Wednesday what I was going to ask him, will he please be so kind as to tell the House why, 48 hours after that, he had a Question placed on the Order Paper by his hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, West Derby (Mr. Ogden), a perfectly bland and innocuous Question, which he chose to answer last night in great detail about his version of the Scott affair? Will he enlighten us?

Mr. Ennals: I had noticed Questions that had been tabled for today. I thought that it would be helpful for the discussion today and for any supplementary questions for me to set out a complete statement in order that any hon. Members could refer to it if they so wished and in order that I could refer to it if I so wished.

Benefits and Pensions (Local Payment Facilities)

Mr. Farr: asked the Secretary of State for Social Services if he is satisfied with the existing means of distribution for social security benefits and retirement pensions, in the light of the continued closure of village post offices.

The Minister for Social Security (Mr. Stanley Orme): Yes, Sir. In September 1977 there were about 11,800 rural sub-post offices, and I am satisfied that they provide an adequate service. This is a net reduction of 160 over the preceding year, but this reduction reflects movements of population rather than a planned withdrawal of services.

Mr. Farr: Can the Minister say whether consideration has yet been given to the recommendations made by the Post Office Users National Council that the Government should compensate the Post

Office for maintaining services at remote sub-post offices which cannot be continued on an economic basis?

Mr. Orme: Along with the work of the joint working party of officials on inter-bank research and payment through banks, this matter is under consideration

Mr. Woodall: Will my right hon. Friend consider opening temporary premises in villages such as Upton in my constituency, which is a village with a closed colliery and in which there is a high rate of unemployment and many elderly people who are inconvenienced through having to travel to the next village of South Kirkby to receive their benefit?

Mr. Orme: I understand that this matter has arisen in a number of mining areas. Where there are elderly and disabled people, special arrangements can be made at present. But where people are signing on for unemployment benefit this must be done within the six-mile limit once a week. Over the six-mile limit, where special consideration can be given, it can be done by post.

Mrs. Chalker: As 72 per cent. of those on the unemployment benefit trial of fortnightly payments preferred fortnightly payments, what proposals does the Minister have to extend the use of fortnightly and monthly payments, and perhaps quarterly payments, to others receiving benefits so as to ease the administrative burden?

Mr. Orme: The experiment that the Government have carried out has now been completed. The results are being examined by Ministers. A statement will be made in the near future.

Mr. Skinner: In relation to what my hon. Friend the Member for Hemsworth (Mr. Woodall) had to say, will my right hon. Friend bear in mind that in certain areas of the coalfields miners on the so-called early retirement scheme are able to get their money, arising out of the closure of some of these offices, on an extended basis, and that it should be made applicable to all? Whilst we are on the subject, will my right hon. Friend bear in mind that there is a drive towards amalgamation of post offices, registry officers for births and deaths and so on, and that this is bad and it is about time


that it was stopped? He and his colleagues ought to intervene and stop the Tory county council in Derbyshire from closing registration offices there, particularly in my constituency.

Mr. Orme: Only the electors in Derbyshire can do that.

Mr. Skinner: I have done my best.

Mr. Orme: On the wider point that my hon. Friend has raised, amalgamation of offices is done for the sake of efficiency, and it assists the staff in many areas who assist people claiming benefits. I understand the fact that there are difficulties. If my hon. Friend and some of his hon. Friends, or any hon. Member, would like to raise any specific cases with me, I shall be quite prepared to discuss them.

Breast Cancer Screening

Mr. Ward: asked the Secretary of State for Social Services what facilities exist within Cambridgeshire for the screening of women for breast cancer and other mammary disorders.

The Minister of State, Department of Health and Social Security (Mr. Roland Moyle): In Cambridge Health District there are no routine "Well Women" clinics, but a full mammary advisory service is available at Addenbrooke's Hospital through referral by GPs.
There are two open access clinics for women in Peterborough Health District. One is at Doddington Hospital and the other at Peterborough District Hospital. Both clinics cater primarily for cervical smears, but the staff are willing to do breast examinations where patients request them.

Mr. Ward: In view of the concern being expressed by women's organisations in my constituency about the inadequacy of primary facilities, may I ask my hon. Friend what progress is being made in the development of secondary techniques for diagnosing this sort of condition?

Mr. Moyle: Secondary care for this sort of condition is vital. Further research is being commissioned through the Medical Research Council, and on the advice of a working group chaired by Sir Richard Doll screening trials are being set up in four localities. They will consist of two types, both replicated

and with controls. They will take the form of, firstly, annual clinical examination over seven years with mammography every other year and, secondly, instruction in and encouragement to undertake regular self-examination, and direct referral to clinics. The sites selected are Edinburgh and Guildford for screening trials and Huddersfield and Nottingham for self-examination.

Mr. Freud: In view of the fact that I told the Minister's right hon. Friend and twice wrote to the Minister himself about a constituent who was in acute pain for 18 months while waiting for a cervical smear, does not the Minister feel slightly ashamed of the answer that he gave—a two-year waiting list in Cambridgeshire?

Mr. Moyle: There are a variety of reasons for waiting lists, but I informed the House that cervical smears were available at Doddington Hospital and at Peterborough District Hospital.

Mr. Freud: A two-year waiting list.

Mr. Pavitt: Will my hon. Friend accept that even more important than mammography and other techniques is the self-examination by a woman of her own problem? In order that she does not defer early diagnosis, will my hon. Friend ask the Health Education Council to have a massive campaign to get rid of fear, so that if there is just a calcified lump it can be removed without all the problems faced by women in regard to worry?

Mr. Moyle: As I have said, we are conducting trials to see what effect regular self-examination will have. Once we have conducted those trials, the position will be clear and we shall be able to decide whether to launch a campaign along the lines that my hon. Friend has suggested.

Mrs. Knight: What help and support does the Minister give to the Women's National Campaign for Cancer Control, particularly in its excellent educative work on self-screening?

Mr. Moyle: I should want notice about that question if I were to inform the House about the question of grant. However, we are most anxious to establish what the effectiveness of screening facilities of this sort will be, because it is


probably the key to treatment in this particular field. That is why we are conducting the tests.

Battered Wives

Mr. Hooley: asked the Secretary of State for Social Services what research is being financed by his Department into the problems of battered wives.

The Under-Secretary of State for Health and Social Security (Mr. Eric Deakins): A study of the incidence of violence in marriage and legal, medical and social services implications; a study of the provision and assessment of services for battered women; and a study of women who have left a refuge and how their stay helped them.

Mr. Hooley: I am obliged to my hon. Friend for that information. Is he aware of the valuable work being done by the Sheffield Association for Battered Wives? Will his Department take some interest in that work, either by way of study or perhaps by way of direct help?

Mr. Skinner: What about battered husbands?

Mr. Deakins: We are always pleased to hear of research that is not being sponsored by my Department. We provide a big grant to the National Women's Aid Federation, and I hope that we can maintain contact with research that is going on in various refuges up and down the country through that national organisation.

Mr. Eldon Griffiths: Is the Minister aware that battered wives—and, no doubt, battered husbands—change their minds and that frequently, having made a complaint to the police, they will then withdraw and refuse to give evidence when the matter comes to the courts, either out of a desire for reconciliation or out of fear? However, there is a very real problem in getting the evidence brought forward in order to make cases stick in the courts.

Mr. Deakins: With respect, that is another question, and I am not even sure that it is a matter for my Department. I suspect that it is a matter for the Home Office.

Mr. Ashley: Is my hon. Friend aware that absolute rubbish is talked on behalf of the police about battered wives withdrawing their complaints? The police are wholly unsympathetic to battered wives.

Therefore, will my hon. Friend discuss with the Home Secretary the need for a change in police attitudes to this terrible problem?

Mr. Deakins: I certainly take note of what my hon. Friend has said. So far as my Department is concerned, we are well aware of the problem of battered wives and fully sympathetic towards the problems that they have to face.

Mr. MacKay: Does the Minister agree that there is an element of sex discrimination in this question when we learn from certain experience that there are just as many battered husbands in our society?

Mr. Deakins: With respect, this is a Question about battered wives, and not battered husbands. Most of the public concern about the need for refuges which has been expressed in the past few years has been in favour of women and not men.

Mr. Hodgson: Does the Minister's research confirm that there is an urgent need for homes in which battered wives can make the transition from the emotionally fraught atmosphere of their homes to more normal living conditions? Has this urgent need been confirmed by his research?

Mr. Deakins: The research that we have sponsored so far has not dealt with that particular problem. We are looking at the possibility of doing something to aid Chiswick Women's Aid, which claims to be a unique therapeutic community. At present we are in discussion with the Royal College of Psychiatrists to see whether there is anything in this claim.

Staff (Winchester and Dorset)

Mr. Evelyn King: asked the Secretary of State for Social Services how many staff, other than doctors and nurses, were employed in the Winchester region and the Dorset area at 1st January 1975 and 1st January 1978, respectively.

Mr. Deakins: Complete figures are available only for 30th September 1975 and for 30th September 1976, when the whole-time equivalents of staff in post for Wessex Region were 17,818·1 and 18,283·3 respectively; and for the Dorset area they were 3,566·1 and 3,665·2 respectively. I am circulating details in the Official Report.

Mr. King: Although they are not, perhaps, figures for identical dates, does the


Minister accept that the number of hospital beds provided has actually declined and is still declining? If that is to be so and other medical services are no better than they were, should there not be corresponding reductions in administrative staff? Will the Minister watch this matter?

Mr. Deakins: First, on the question of figures, the number of administrative and clerical staff in this one area, in the Wes-sex Region, rose by 11·9 on a figure of roughly 5,000, and in Dorset it rose by only 4·9 on a figure of 1,000, so I would have thought that the record was fairly good in that area.
On the more general question of administrative staff, my right hon. Friend has taken determined steps to reduce management costs from the level obtaining when we came to office. We shall reduce them by 1980 by 5 per cent., and we are well on target towards that.

Mr. David Price: Is the Minister aware that for many years the Wessex Region has done badly out of all Governments, on both capital account and current account, that it is not a matter of arguing between one district and another within the region, and that, due to the establishment of a medical school in Southampton—which we welcome—this has led to many other districts getting even less than is available?

Mr. Deakins: The question of resources is not directly related to this, but the hon. Gentleman will know that under the Resource Allocation Working Party procedure, there is a redistribution from the regions which are above the national average to those which are below the national average. So far, Wessex has benefited under those provisions.

Following are the details:



Whole-time equivalent at 30th September 1975



Wessex Regional Health Authority
Dorset Area Health Authority


Administrative and Clerical*
5,094·4
1,010·0


Professional and Technical
2,495·2
513·0


Ancillary
8,409·3
1,732·1


Works
266·4
25·0


Maintenance
877·7
143·0


Ambulancemen/women
675·1
143·0


Totals
17,818·1
3,566·1






Whole-time equivalent at 30th September 1976



Wessex Regional Health Authority
Dorset Area Health Authority


Administrative and Clerical*
5,106·3
1,014·9


Professional and Technical
2,800·9
611·5


Ancillary
8,526·0
1,735·8


Works
291·5
27·0


Maintenance
890·0
136·0


Ambulancemen/women
668·6
140·0


Totals
18,283·3
3,665·2


* Includes ambulance officers and control assistants.

Personal Files

Mr. Onslow: asked the Secretary of State for Social Services, if he is satisfied with his Department's arrangements for the safe custody of files relating to individual members of the public.

Mr. Lawrence: asked the Secretary of State for Social Services if he is satisfied with the arrangements for the confidentiality of files held by his Department relating to individual citizens.

Mr. Ennals: Yes, Sir.

Mr. Onslow: Will the Secretary of State please now tell the House what inquiries he has made into the statement on pages 175–177 of the book "The Pencourt File" that certain files relating to Mr. Norman Scott were removed from his Department by a political aide, whom we now know to be Mr. Jack Straw, and taken to 10 Downing Street and seen there by the then Prime Minister, the right hon. Member for Huyton (Sir H. Wilson), and that he in turn took copies of those files and has kept them?

Mr. Ennals: It is for Ministers to decide for themselves, bearing in mind the need to respect the confidentiality of personal information, what papers they need to consult and what advice they need in order to perform their ministerial functions. My right hon. Friend the Member for Huyton (Sir H. Wilson) evidently thought it necessary to inform himself about this case, as he has since made clear to the Press.

Mr. Lawrence: With reference to the Secretary of State's answer, and to the Written Answer which he gave to my hon. Friend the Member for Blackpool, South (Mr. Blaker) on 27th February,


will he say what exceptional circumstances there were to justify the disclosure of the files of Norman Scott to the then Prime Minister and his political secretary? Was it in order to meet statutory or welfare requirements, was it to stop duplication of payments out of public funds, or was it to assist the police with the prosecution? Was the consent of Mr. Norman Scott ever obtained?

Mr. Ennals: It is for the Prime Minister of the day to decide what information he needs to see, and what information he asks of a responsible Secretary of State, to enable him to decide whether there is any impropriety or anything else. It was on precisely that point that I made a statement yesterday. I assured the House that I had made a thorough investigation when I came into office. I also assured the House that there had in no sense been any impropriety on the part of my Department.

Mrs. Castle: Is my right hon. Friend aware that the book "The Pencourt File" has about as much validity as "Babies for Burning" turned out to have? Is he aware that no files relating to any person were taken out of the Department by Mr. Jack Straw to the Prime Minister of the day or to anyone else? Can we not stop the Tories trying to stir up mud as a result of the fevered imagination of a couple of journalists?

Mr. Ennals: I agree with my right hon. Friend in terms of her comment on the book. It certainly is a package of rumour, innuendo and tittle-tattle. But, since it was perfectly clear that some Conservative Members wished to pursue this, it was for that reason that I thought it quite proper to make a statement to the House and to reveal the fact that, when I knew that allegations were made, I carried out a very thorough investigation and assured myself, and now assure the House, that there was no impropriety.

Mr. Onslow: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. In view of the unsatisfactory nature of the reply, I beg to give notice that I shall seek to raise the matter on the Adjournment.

Dentists (Payment)

Mr. Michael McNair-Wilson: asked the Secretary of State for Social Services

whether he is satisfied with the present methods of paying dentists for their NHS work.

Mr. Ennals: The present methods of paying dentists have been jointly agreed with the dental profession. But I am always ready to look at proposals for improvement in the arrangements or any reasonable alternative.

Mr. McNair-Wilson: Is the Secretary of State aware that in Berkshire some dental practitioners are so dissatisfied with their remuneration that they are withholding certain services, in particular the supply of false teeth, to my constituents, and that when they are supplied the dentists are no less than £12 to £15 out of pocket?

Mr. Ennals: I am aware that some dentists in some parts of the country are refusing to provide some types of treatment, such as dentures, under the National Health Service. I deplore the fact that the British Dental Association has given such advice to its dentists—to be selective. It was for this reason that I sent a personal letter to all dentists asking them not to make patients suffer. But the House will be encouraged to know that the figures for dental treatment under the NHS for the first two months of this year show an increase of 280,000 over the first two months of last year. The number of cases treated is steadily increasing.

Mr. Madden: Will the Secretary of State confirm or deny weekend Press reports which suggested that his party was proposing in future to finance private pension schemes for the staff of family doctors? Do similar schemes exist for the staff of dentists? Does he agree that if resources are being used in this way the NHS is being further starved of badly-needed resources?

Mr. Ennals: I ask my hon. Friend to put down a Question on that matter.

Mr. Patrick Jenkin: Does the Secretary of State realise that he will never be able to reach a satisfactory agreement with the dentists, or any of the National Health Service professions, as long as many of his colleagues, in Cabinet and on the Labour Back Benches, continue


their campaign of sniping and vilification against professional integrity and professional independence? He may mean well, but his party does not.

Mr. Ennals: What the right hon. Gentleman said is absolute rubbish. It is not true that there have been such allegations. The relations that it has been possible for the Government to maintain with the professions have been on a very civilised basis. I regret that at the present time the British Dental Association has decided to withdraw from the dental rates study group, an independent body on which it has co-operated up to now and which has the responsibility for determining expenses. I have pleaded with the BDA to return to this independent body, because at present it is depriving dentists of a new assessment of their expenses. For this reason, I have now referred the matter to the Review Body. The accusations made by the right hon. Gentleman are quite untrue.

Mexborough Montagu Hospital (Casualty Department)

Mr. Edwin Wainwright: asked the Secretary of State for Social Services what recent representations he has received from people in the Mexborough and surrounding districts requesting that the casualty department of the Mexborough Montagu Hospital be reopened to provide a 24-hour daily service.

Mr. Moyle: I have received a petition from people served by the hospital and a letter from Mr. O'Donaghue, Secretary of the Rotherham Hospital Branch of the National Union of Public Employees.

Mr. Wainwright: Does my hon. Friend realise that people in the Mexborough and surrounding districts do not object to his Department building hospitals in the town centre, but they object to their lives being placed in danger because they have to travel so far and also to the indifference of the authorities to this?
Will my hon. Friend bear in mind what I have said and put pressure on the Trent Regional Health Authority and the Rotherham Area Health Authority to make sure that the casualty department of the Mexborough Montagu Hospital is open on a 24-hour basis?

Mr. Moyle: The lives of my hon. Friend's constituents are not likely to be

in danger, because there will be a modern accident and emergency department at the new Rotherham Hospital, fully equipped. Certainly no indifference is being expressed by the Trent Regional Health Authority, which has approved the establishment of a clinical assistant to work at the Montagu Hospital. As a result of interviews last Friday, the authority has now filled that post, so that the accident and emergency department will be opening. The aim is to give a service from 9 a.m. to 10 p.m.

Mr. Wainwright: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. In view of the unsatisfactory nature of the reply, I beg to give notice that I shall seek to raise the matter on the Adjournment at the earliest possible moment.

Hospital Waiting Lists

Mr. Knox: asked the Secretary of State for Social Services how many patients were awaiting admission into National Health Service hospitals at the latest date for which figures are available.

Mr. Ennals: The revised provisional figure for patients awaiting admission into NHS hospitals at 30th September 1977 was 594,000.

Mr. Knox: Does the Secretary of State agree that the figure is very high? Does he realise that in Staffordshire the size of the waiting list increased by 20 per cent. between September 1976 and September 1977? What practical steps is he taking to deal with this very alarming situation?

Mr. Ennals: I agree that the figure is too high. I have to say, with sadness, that it has always been too high. The total number of people awaiting admission to hospital has fluctuated around 500,000 since the inception of the National Health Service.
As I said in reply to an earlier question, we reached a peak of 607,000 at the end of 1976. Fortunately, the figures are now lower than that. But I have made a number of suggestions for dealing with this problem, drawn from the experience of health authorities. They include the centralisation and streamlining of admission procedures, greater flexibility in the use of hospital beds, the use of day surgery, five-day wards for minor operations, added facilities for investigation, and other methods.

Mr. Hoyle: Does not my right hon. Friend agree that one factor in reducing waiting lists would be to take over all the private beds in the National Health Service, especially as many of those who get the privilege of using them do not even pay for them at the end of the day?

Mr. Ennals: We are already making good progress in fulfilling the terms of the National Health Service Act in that we are steadily phasing out pay beds from the National Health Service and shall be moving forward towards common waiting lists in the National Health Service.

Mr. Bowden: Will the Secretary of State consider giving special priority to the elderly when they are on lists for routine operations? Obviously, a routine operation at the age of 30 or 40 is very different from one at the age of 70 or 80.

Mr. Ennals: It is for the hospital consultants to decide what priority should be given to what patients. But in terms of particular types of operation—I am thinking of joint replacements, which are particularly for the elderly—they have a high priority.

Mrs. Castle: Do not these high figures show the urgent need to establish common waiting lists, which would prevent private patients jumping the queue? Can my right hon. Friend say when he proposes to take action on the excellent report on common waiting lists produced some time ago by the Health Services Board?

Mr. Ennals: I have received the report of the Health Services Board, and I am now consulting about the best ways in which it can be implemented.

Mr. Patrick Jenkin: Does the right hon. Gentleman think that misleading the House about the extra money which was supposed to have been put into the reducing of waiting lists helps the problem in any way? Why, on 22nd November, did he talk about an increase of £9·5 million when there was nothing of the sort? There was no extra money at all. Does he think that helps?

Mr. Ennals: The right hon. Gentleman knows that I neither misled the House nor sought to mislead it. I made it clear that there was roughly £8·5 million which had been identified by the health authorities as being directly attributed to easing

the problem of waiting lists. I made no suggestion that there were new resources.

Crawley Hospital

Mr. Hordern: asked the Secretary of State for Social Services whether he will review the proposals for the additions to Crawley Hospital; and if he will make a statement.

Mr. Moyle: Construction of phase III, which will provide additional beds and other services in support of the existing accident and emergency department, is due to start within the next few months.

Mr. Hordern: Is the Minister aware that there is an acute shortage of nurses at Crawley Hospital, and is he aware, further, that the Government propose to expand the number of passengers at Gatwick Airport from 6 million to 24 million? In view of the fact that the facilities at Crawley Hospital are already grossly inadequate, does not phase III need to be expanded and consolidated still further?

Mr. Moyle: There is a longer-term plan to provide further beds after the completion of phase III which is being considered by the area and regional health authorities. It is true that there was a shortage of nurses in the earlier part of this year. That was due to a misunderstanding of some local policies. But that has now been rectified—at least, it was last week—and by the time phase III comes into operation there will be a new nurse training school which should provide all the nurses needed by the hospital.

Supplementary Benefit (Fraud and Mistakes)

Mrs. Knight: asked the Secretary of State for Social Services what estimate he has made of the total sum of money lost in supplementary benefits through fraud and mistakes in 1977; and what steps he will take to cut down this sum.

Mr. Orme: Cash losses due to irrecoverable overpayments of supplementary benefit recorded during the financial year ended 31st March 1977 amounted to about £8 million. Although this sum is small in comparison with the total of £1·8 billion supplementary benefit paid in that year, we take our prevention responsibilities very seriously. The methods


used in taking and processing claims are designed to minimise the risk of fraud and erroneous payments, and these methods will continue to be reviewed in the light of experience.

Mrs. Knight: In answering my supplementary question, will the right hon. Gentleman bear in mind that I am not asking how much money which could have been claimed was not claimed? Can he please confirm that the biggest rise in the amount lost comes from official errors, which represent about 40 per cent.? Will he perhaps consider the possibility that the impossible complexity of the benefit system is contributing to these errors?

Mr. Orme: I might tell the hon. Lady as a background to my answer that we make 100 million Giro payments a year of short-term benefits and 900 million order book payments of long-term benefits a year. That is the size of the operation. I recognise that the staff errors which were made amounted to a little more than £3 million. We spend a great deal of time and money on training, monitoring standards of work and other forms of checking, and this has to be weighed against the results achieved. Obviously we want to continue to improve them, and we examine them continuously.

Mr. Stoddart: Does not my right hon. Friend agree that it is odd that Questions from the Opposition about fraud are always about social security recipients? Would not it be better if they concentrated some of their Questions on the enormous amount of money lost to the Exchequer through tax frauds?

Mr. Orme: Some Opposition Members make these accusations continuously, and they are wrong. I agree entirely with what my hon. Friend said about tax frauds.

Back Pain (Report)

Mr. Jessel: asked the Secretary of State for Social Services whether he has yet received the report of the Committee on Back Pain.

Mr. Moyle: No, Sir, but I understand that Professor Cochrane's working group intends to submit an interim report within the next few months.

Mr. Jessel: As back pain is known to cost the country about £1 million a day in sickness benefit, medical care and lost production, and as Professor Cochrane's working party has been sitting since 1976, will the Minister see what he can do to speed up matters? Will he also say what support he will give to the pioneering work of the Back Pain Association?

Mr. Moyle: It was because of the work of the Back Pain Association, amongst others, that we set up the working party, which has been sitting since the end of 1976. It is a subject which needs study in depth. It was because of the importance that we attached to the subject that the working party was created.

Mr. Heffer: Although undoubtedly this is a particularly serious Question, is my hon. Friend aware that some of us feel that many of the Questions coming from the Opposition are a pain elsewhere than in the neck?

Mr. Moyle: I shall bear that in mind when dealing with Questions other than the one raised by the hon. Member for Twickenham (Mr. Jessel).

Child Benefit

Mr. MacKay: asked the Secretary of State for Social Services when he expects to take further decisions about the level of child benefit.

Mr. Orme: I can add nothing to the reply I gave to my hon. Friend the Member for Welwyn and Hatfield (Mrs. Hayman) on 7th February.

Mr. MacKay: Bearing in mind that the level of child support under this Government is now even less than it was 30 years ago, is not it time that we inflation-proofed child benefits in line with tax allowances for adults and other supplementary benefits?

Mr. Orme: I remind the hon. Member that child benefit will increase to £2·30 per child next month and that this Government introduced child benefit for the first child. Although we always want to improve it, there has nevertheless been a considerable improvement in child support.

Mrs. Hayman: Before succumbing to the demands for index-linking, will my


right hon. Friend ensure that child benefit is at a reasonable level? Does he agree that at the moment it is far too low to be index-linked, that it needs to be raised substantially in the forthcoming Budget and that in the interests of fairness it should be at the same level as the child portion in national insurance benefits?

Mr. Orme: I agree that child benefit is not yet at the level where it should be index-linked. I note what my hon. Friend said about the Budget. No doubt she will draw it to the attention of my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer.

Mr. Patrick Jenkin: Does the right hon. Gentleman agree with the statement made by the Chancellor of the Exchequer at the Labour Party Conference that he would not use any of the available money to increase child benefit because it would be unfair to single or married people without children? Does he share that view?

Mr. Orme: I have not the words of my right hon. Friend before me, but he has been consistent in supporting an increase in child benefit, and it is the intention of this Government to continue that support for children and the family.

Ambulance Service

Mr. Arnold: asked the Secretary of State for Social Services whether he remains satisfied with the efficiency of the ambulance service.

Mr. Deakins: Yes, but, as with all services, it is capable of improvement.

Mr. Arnold: Does not the Minister agree that there is a continuously increasing demand for this service? How is this to be financed in circumstances where, as in the North-West, only some of the service is used for emergency work?

Mr. Deakins: Finance is part of the wider problem of extra resources for the NHS. In the meantime, under the RAWP principle, the North-West Region and areas within it will be benefiting from this and will continue to do so for the next few years.

Mr. Molloy: Is my hon. Friend aware that these questions demonstrate beyond peradventure that it is the desire of all the House of Commons completely to

refurbish the NHS and social allowances? All sides of the House want an injection of extra public expenditure in order to refurbish the NHS and the social services. A massive minority of one is opposed to this, and that is the right hon. Lady the Leader of the Opposition.

Mr. Deakins: Those views are held strongly by all Ministers in my Department.

Dr. Vaughan: Does not the Minister realise that the efficiency of the ambulance service is seriously reduced by industrial unrest? There is widespread industrial unrest within the NHS. Why does not the Secretary of State condemn industrial action in the Health Service?

Mr. Deakins: My right hon. Friend has already dealt with that in reply to an earlier question.

Drug Safety (Warning System)

Mr. Ashley: asked the Secretary of State for Social Services if he is satisfied that the warning system by which his Department notifies doctors of possible dangers of drugs is working effectively.

Mr. Moyle: The Committee on Safety of Medicines is at present consulting on proposals to improve the post-marketing surveillance of drugs and is constantly reviewing its methods of communicating with the professions.

Mr. Ashley: Is my hon. Friend aware that these constant reviews are completely ineffective, because after doctors were warned that hormone drugs like the pregnancy test drug Primodos could cause babies to be malformed they were still prescribing these drugs? Despite the negative response and complacent replies I have had from his Department, this matter is of growing public concern.

Mr. Moyle: I agree with my hon. Friend that this is a matter of proper concern. That is why we are seeking to reinforce the yellow card system by the new system of surveying about 20 drugs every year and the patients who are taking them. We are consulting upon this new approach. When we have had the replies, we can take a decision on what needs to be done.

Dentistry

Mrs. Renée Short: asked the Secretary of State for Social Services what


action he is taking to ensure there is enough NHS dentistry available for those who need it.

Mr. Ennals: The increasing number of dentists being added to the Dentists Register each year provides the basis for continuing improvement in National Health Service dental services.

Mrs. Short: Is my right hon. Friend aware that there are certain parts of the country where no NHS dentistry is available, not even for emergencies? I have evidence of patients who have been asked to pay £200 for bridging and £450 for capping teeth. Does he not think that that is a scandalous situation, especially when we are supposed to provide complete NHS dentistry for all patients who need it?

Mr. Ennals: Yes, I think that it is disgraceful. My hon. Friend will know, that I have no power of compulsion with regard to which patients a dentist will treat and what services he will provide. I made it clear earlier—and I have done so publicly—that I deeply deplore the decision of some dentists to limit the amount of NHS service which they are prepared to give. It is encouraging that there is a steadily increasing number of dentists providing services, and an increasing number of treatments, under the NHS.

Mr. Nelson: Does the Secretary of State also accept that the long-term aim should be to provide a greater degree of preventive dentistry, as opposed to corrective dentistry, under the NHS? In particular, will he give greater impetus to the possibility of providing voluntary fluoride treatment such as fissure sealants and topical applications under the NHS?

Mr. Ennals: I very much agree with the hon. Gentleman, and I would go much further. He will know that the vast majority of area health authorities have now given their approval to fluoridation. I only wish that it was now possible for health authorities to fulfil these recommendations in order that the whole country can benefit.

Mr. Pavitt: Does my right hon. Friend recall that in April 1976 my working party submitted 37 recommendations and at the same time was able to show that if they were all implemented we would

have precisely the same problems about the dentistry provisions under the NHS? In view of this, will he now take the dust off the file and try to implement some of those recommendations?

Mr. Ennals: The recommendations made by my hon. Friend's working party were of very great value. Some of them have been implemented, but I shall have a look at them again to see whether further action can be taken.

Dr. Vaughan: Why does the Secretary of State condemn the dentists but not the hospital porters?

Mr. Ennals: The hon. Gentleman knows very well the position that I have taken with regard to industrial action in the Health Service, whether it applies to doctors, nurses or others who work in the Health Service. Fortunately, the vast majority of those who work in the NHS recognise that when they take industrial action they are taking it against the interests of patients.

Oral Answers to Questions — DENMARK (PRIME MINISTER)

Mr. Whitehead: asked the Prime Minister what plans he has to meet the Prime Minister of Denmark.

The Prime Minister (Mr. James Callaghan): I expect to meet Mr. Jorgensen at the next meeting of the European Council at Copenhagen on 7th and 8th April.

Mr. Whitehead: At that meeting, will my right hon. Friend raise with the Council of Ministers the question of Japanese car imports into this country in particular and the EEC in general, bearing in mind our vulnerability to manufactured imports, especially cars? Does he agree that EEC action is now needed to prevent the Japanese, who have recently refused to continue voluntary restrictions, from exporting unemployment to Europe? Will not that lead later to a savage trade war?

The Prime Minister: The European Community has up to the moment regarded this matter as being best dealt with by bilateral discussions between the motor car industries. Such discussions have taken place. I believe that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Trade will be answering a Question on


the Japanese situation later this afternoon which indicates that the Japanese motor car industry expects to take a lower market share in this country during 1978 than it took in 1977. If, therefore, our own production can increase, we can fill that gap very easily.

Mr. Welsh: When the Prime Minister meets the Danish Prime Minister, will he ask him for lessons on how to defend the interests of the agriculture industry in the Common Market? Is he aware of the present drastic fall in United Kingdom livestock numbers caused by the failure of Government policies to defend adequately the United Kingdom livestock industry? What will he positively do about that?

The Prime Minister: I was not aware that my right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food was regarded as having failed to defend the interests of British agriculture in the Community. Indeed, I thought the protests were that he was defending them too well. I must say that I think there is a period of expansion ahead for British agriculture at the present time.

Mr. Roper: Will my right hon. Friend take advantage of his meeting with Mr. Jorgensen to discuss the possibility of a meeting between the leaders of the Socialist Parties of the European Community in order to discuss preparations for direct elections?

Mr. Skinner: No. Leave it alone.

The Prime Minister: If I need any guide to my conscience, I shall take my hon. Friend with me and we can talk about it together. I must say that, however sympathetic I might be, there is no ministerial responsibility for party meetings.

Mr. Marten: When the Prime Minister meets the Danish Prime Minister, will he take with him a copy of the excellent article in yesterday's evening newspaper by his hon. Friend the Member for Lewisham, West (Mr. Price), who spent a year at the European Assembly and has written a very critical article saying what a farce the whole thing is?

The Prime Minister: If that is the case, I do not know why the hon. Gentleman is so intent on opposing any additions to

the European Assembly or opposing the elections that would take place.

Oral Answers to Questions — CBI and TUC

Mr. Wrigglesworth: asked the Prime Minister when he last met the CBI and TUC.

The Prime Minister: I refer my hon. Friend to the reply which I gave to my hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield, Hillsborough (Mr. Flannery) on 2nd February.

Mr. Wrigglesworth: When my right hon. Friend meets the TUC and CBI, will he confirm that the Conservative Opposition are totally out of step not only with trade unionists but with the CBI with regard to incomes and economic policies? Will he remind them of the comments made by the right hon. Member for Worcester (Mr. Walker) in which he said that he was depressed by the Tory leadership at present following nineteenth century Tory free market principles that would lead only to squalor, slums and injustice in our society?

The Prime Minister: I would not like my hon. Friend to think that when I meet the CBI and the TUC we spend a lot of time discussing the Opposition. As regards the right hon. Member for Worcester (Mr. Walker), I agree that he follows the line of people like R. A. Butler, Macmillan and Macleod who cared about one nation. The only difference is that they were then in charge of the Conservative Party, whereas the right hon. Member for Worcester has to speak in exile from below the Gangway.

Mr. Forman: When the Prime Minister next meets the TUC and the CBI, will he strongly resist any calls for a return to protectionism through Government policies, bearing in mind that this would not be in the interests of British consumers? Also, if this is done through the EEC, it may well mean retaliatory action from the Americans, which would be very damaging to our prospects for recovery.

The Prime Minister: We have, since the war, attempted to lower trade barriers. Now it seems that the tide could be turning the other way because of the growth of industrial unemployment throughout the Western world. For Britain this would be a serious reversal as


21 per cent. of our gross national product comes from foreign trade. This does not mean that we cannot take selective action—and we have done. The United States has a great complaint against the EEC now in relation to agricultural products, and I have some sympathy with it.

Mr. Stan Crowther: When the Prime Minister next meets the TUC and the CBI, will he discuss with them the advisability of reducing the standard working week for manual workers and the retiring age for men? The development of technology means that manual labour will be reduced progressively. It is far better to pay men in their 60s a decent pension to retire than to have men in their 30s and 40s with families out of work.

Mr. Cormack: Retire!

The Prime Minister: I fear that, on that basis, about three-quarters of the present House of Commons would have to go—

Hon. Members: Hear, hear.

Mr. Speaker: Order. The Prime Minister must not be personal.

The Prime Minister: I thought that all the cheers were coming from the younger generation. However, my hon. Friend the Member for Rotherham (Mr. Crowther) has a serious point and one which will concern the industrial world increasingly over the next decade—the question of the extent to which the manufacturing industry can provide additional jobs. We have not yet solved this problem. Constantly I press upon the TUC the need to raise these matters within the European TUC, so that through the European Council as a whole action can be taken internationally, or at least on an EEC basis. We cannot make it impossible for this country to compete by increasing our costs unduly.

Mrs. Thatcher: Does the Prime Minister recall the industrial growth targets for manufacturing industry that were accepted by NEDC in the year of the economic miracle—in August 1976—after they had been presented by the Chancellor? The target was for a growth rate in manufacturing industry at an annual average rate of 8 per cent. over

four years. What is the target for next year, since that target has not yet been revised?

The Prime Minister: I do not recall that particular figure. I really do not see why the Leader of the Opposition should expect me to come here charged with every figure in my head that the gang of four has sedulously fed her for Prime Minister's Questions. I would agree with the right hon. Lady that efforts to overcome inflation combined with the problems of the oil-producing countries have created a situation in which it has not been possible to grow. However, we have broadly overcome inflation—[HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."] I said "broadly". Perhaps I had better repeat the figures. When the Conservatives left office, inflation was running at 15·2 per cent. It is now 9·9 per cent. and steadily decreasing. I hope that the Chancellor, when he makes his Budget Statement, will be able to give the right hon. Lady a reply on the growth figures this year.

Mrs. Thatcher: The Prime Minister refers to the gang of four. The trouble here is the gang of one at the Treasury. This manufacturing growth rate, which the Prime Minister does not know, is the basis for what is known as scenario II, which is based on the assumptions of all the sector working parties. Is not the Prime Minister aware that his own industrial strategy has always consisted of pie in the sky tomorrow and an appalling performance today? Would it not be better to turn to an incentive strategy, instead of high taxation and no incentive for the individual?

The Prime Minister: I am obliged to the right hon. Lady for that information. I am always ready to receive it. However, it is a case not of giving information but of digesting and using it, and that is what I sometimes wonder about. As far as industrial strategy is concerned, I would suggest that the Opposition stop behaving in this Pavlovian way. Manufacturing industry—employers, managers and trade unionists—strongly supports the Government in trying to get a new approach to industrial strategy. They are working hard in the industrial working parties, and I hope that at some time the Opposition will pay tribute to what they are doing.

Oral Answers to Questions — BELFAST

Mr. Litterick: asked the Prime Minister if he will pay a visit to Belfast.

The Prime Minister: Such visits are not announced in advance.

Mr. Litterick: Is my right hon. Friend aware that, according to the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland, there are now 32,000 armed men who are vainly attempting to make Northern Ireland governable? In this the ninth year of the present conflict in the Province, does he agree that that figure is evidence of the failure of all political initiatives by both Labour and Conservative Governments, and will he therefore consider seriously the ending of British sovereignty in Northern Ireland?

The Prime Minister: It is much easier to attack what is being done than to propose a solution to end the violence. I do not think for one moment that any suggestion that we should withdraw from Northern Ireland would do anything but increase to a savage extent the violence in the Province.

Mr. Powell: When the Prime Minister comes again to Northern Ireland—and he is always welcome there—will he note that the latest bout of terror has left the people of Northern Ireland as unshaken and determined as ever? Is he aware that the only effect of IRA violence in the past eight years has been to strengthen the Union? Will he see that that message gets across to the IRA?

The Prime Minister: I also suggest to the right hon. Member for Down, South (Mr. Powell) that the violence has had the effect of separating a great many of the minority population from what would seem to be the aspirations of the old IRA and the existing PIRA. My own experience of Northern Ireland—which is far less than that of the right hon. Member and his colleagues—is that an overwhelming proportion of Catholics and minority groups strongly dissociate themselves from the violence that has taken place. We should all pay tribute to that.

MOTOR VESSEL "ENTERPRISE"

Mr. Henderson: Mr. Henderson (by Private Notice) asked whether the Secretary of State for

Trade would make a statement on the disappearance of the Fraserburgh motor vessel "Enterprise".

The Under-Secretary of State for Trade (Mr. Clinton Davis): The "Enterprise" sailed from Fraserburgh and was known to be fishing the waters east of Shetland. Her last known position was at 21.30 hours on 23rd February when she was approximately 90 miles east of Lerwick and was in radio contact with the trawler "Grampian Castle". Weather conditions in the area at that time were known to be extremely severe. The Coastguard was not informed about any anxiety concerning the vessel until 15.45 hours on 28th February. Inquiries were put in hand forthwith and a broadcast to shipping was made accompanied by a request for an air search to be undertaken at first light.
At the earliest opportunity a Royal Air Force Nimrod reconnaissance aircraft began a search. In addition HMS "Orkney", a Royal Navy offshore protection ship, and subsequently a number of fishing vessels, also carried out a search of the area in which it was thought the "Enterprise" might be located. Despite this, nothing was found and the search was discontinued at last light on 2nd March.
A preliminary inquiry was ordered on 1st March.
I am sure that the House would wish to join with me in expressing deepest sympathy with the families of the crew of the "Enterprise".

Mr. Henderson: Is the Minister aware that my constituents will appreciate that message of sympathy? Is he also aware that the relatives of crew men whom I visited at the weekend expressed their deep appreciation of the dedicated work carried out by the rescue services, co-ordinated by Her Majesty's Coastguard at Wick, and of those who volunteered in the search? In the light of this appalling tragedy, will he consider inviting the industry to consider yet again the system of position reporting so that as far as possible every precaution is taken to ensure that Coastguard knows where boats are at all times? Indeed, will he consider that matter now?

Mr. Davis: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for paying tribute to the work


of the rescue services, a tribute that is justly deserved.
In regard to vessel reporting arrangements, I would inform the House that at a meeting in June 1977 the Scottish Fishermen's Federation reviewed the reporting arrangements then in force for vessels fishing on more distant grounds. Unfortunately, despite the efforts made by the Coastguard to try to enforce the situation voluntarily, there has been a reluctance—I think unwisely—by fishermen to disclose their fishing whereabouts. Despite that factor, a modified system was introduced, because the original system was not being adhered to, whereby vessels would report whenever in difficulty or danger or if there were cause for anxiety in respect of the safety of any other vessel. This matter will have to be pursued in the preliminary inquiry that is being undertaken.

Mr. James Johnson: Since we suffered the loss of "Gaul" four years ago, may I on behalf of Humberside extend to my Scottish colleagues our sympathy in this grievous loss. May I ask the Minister about the IMCO safety regulations? Norway, Australia and the United States make it mandatory to carry electronic position-indicating radio beacons. Is it not correct that the Norwegians, who fish in similar waters to those fished by our vessels in the North Arctic, are equipped with radio beacons? If that is the case, will my hon. Friend say what Her Majesty's Government are doing on these lines?

Mr. Davis: As my hon. Friend knows, the Government have been pursuing inquiries into these matters with diligence. But up to the present time no fully satisfactory advice has been obtained, and on that basis it would be impossible to impose a mandatory requirement. But I am requesting very strongly indeed that the Fishing Industry Safety Group, which I set up not so long ago, should investigate this matter, among others, at its meeting in May.

Mr. Teddy Taylor: Is the Minister aware that Conservative Members wish to express our sympathy at the tragic loss of life in this disaster? He will also be well aware that many of these fishermen have left young families. Although loss of life cannot be avoided in such dangerous employment, does he not agree that this

great tragedy should give us new resolve to take every possible step to minimise the dangers? Is he willing to review the findings of the Holland Martin Report which followed a similar tragedy? Will he accept the advice of the hon. Member for Aberdeenshire, East (Mr. Henderson) and initiate fresh discussions with the industry in Scotland and with the GPO about the possibility of arriving at an effective and acceptable system of position reporting, which works effectively in some areas of the United Kingdom but not in others?

Mr. Davis: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for joining in the condolences to the relatives and friends who have suffered this appalling bereavement. This matter cannot be applied only to Scotland. Whatever the tragic circumstances, we have to examine the general position. This points to the essential need for the implementation of the fishing vessel safety rules—rules which were introduced but which, I regret, met with considerable opposition within the industry. We have done our best in introducing those rules to try to enjoin the full support of the industry. A precondition of their application was the establishment of the Fishing Industry Safety Group. I am confident that at its next meeting that group will consider the comments made in this discussion.

Several Hon. Members: Several Hon. Members rose—

Mr. Speaker: This is a Private Notice Question. I shall call the right hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Grimond) and the other two hon. Members who rose earlier.

Mr. Grimond: May I join in the expressions of deep regret over this tragedy, which has been a disaster not only for the relatives concerned but for the whole town of Fraserburgh? Will the Minister ensure that the question of adequacy of the radio links round the coast is examined because there has been some anxiety on this score on the part of fishermen in many parts of Scotland.

Mr. Davis: I do not think it is so much a question of the adequacy of the radio links round the coast as of the reluctance of fishermen to disclose their fishing positions. I hope that the impact of this


tragedy will emphasise to them the importance of ensuring that there is radio contact, so that similar situations are made clear to the Coastguard at the earliest opportunity.

Mr. Buchan: May I on behalf of Labour Back Benchers express sympathy with the bereaved relatives? I was in Fraserburgh last week and I know the deep shadow that this tragedy cast over the whole community, an area with which I am closely connected. I agree with the Minister that it is not only the technological aspect that needs to be strengthened, although steps may have to be taken in that regard. I wish to ask whether the Minister will have an early meeting with the fishermen and their association. Safety must be a priority and must be taken against all the other attitudes taken by the fishermen. However, perhaps in view of what has happened, safety will be regarded as the first priority in similar circumstances.

Mr. Davis: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for those remarks. It is so often the case that when a tragedy happens the House and the industry become truly alerted to the dangers and difficulties, but those anxieties seem to be dispelled with time. It is the fatalities that occur to fishermen that appear to be paramount in our consideration. I hope that the lesson of this appalling tragedy will be learned by the industry and everybody concerned with fishing.

Mr. Watt: I appreciate that no amount of legislation could avert a danger such as this, but does the Minister not agree that there was an undue length of time before a search was initiated? Should it not be up to the fishing office through which the boat operates to ensure that each vessel reports at least once in every 24 hours?

Mr. Davis: I do not accept the hon. Gentleman's remarkable criticism of the search and rescue services. Indeed, it was not for some considerable time that the owners reported any anxiety about this vessel at all. If what the Department of Trade has been recommending for a very long time had been implemented, there can be no doubt that this matter would have been reported to the Coastguard very much earlier. I hope, as I have said before, that the full lessons will be learned fol-

lowing the preliminary inquiry and possibly a formal inquiry which will follow that.

QUESTIONS TO MINISTERS

Mr. Skinner: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I wish to refer to the statement that you made about the putting down of Questions to departmental Ministers, such as "if he will list his official engagements".
I am certain that you did not want to mislead the House. You should leave that to the rest of us, because we can usually do that much better than you. You said that this practice should not be condoned or encouraged because departmental Ministers do not in fact transfer Questions. At least, that is the drift that I got.
I have news for you, Mr. Speaker. Three weeks ago I put down a Question, No. 8, to the Department of Employment. It was a very important Question regarding the necessity, or lack of necessity, for miners having to go to employment offices to sign on when they are ostensibly retired early. After getting to the important position of No. 8, I found subsequently, last Tuesday, that it was on the agenda of the Department of Social Services, the result being, of course, that it is now No. 46 or something like that.
I have a novel suggestion for both of us, Mr. Speaker. On the basis that you were to some extent wrong regarding the guidance you had been given and the fact that the Secretary of State—[HON. MEMBERS: "Order."] There was just a little shade of difference. As the Secretary of State for Social Services is here and as the Question is extremely important to many thousands of miners, will you encourage the Secretary of State to stand up and give me the answer that he should have given me in any case?

Mr. Speaker: I should tell the hon. Gentleman that Ministers transfer Questions when they consider that they are not for their Departments. The point that I was making to the House was that if a Question was directed to a Minister's Department, by long and ancient custom that Minister was expected to answer it.

Mr. Adley: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. I realise that you


were trying to help the House when you made your statement on my Question. But surely an open-ended Question of that nature helps hon. Members to raise current issues which may not be known about two weeks beforehand.
In addition, I should like to illustrate the point made by the hon. Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner) with another specific example of the transferring of Questions. I have tried to question the Department of Transport about British Rail's attitude to development land tax, but that is out of order because that Department is not responsible for taxation. I am equally unable to question the Treasury about British Rail's attitude, because it is not responsible for British Rail. Therefore, there are occasions when hon. Members have to resort to this tactic to raise a particular issue.

Mr. Speaker: I must stand firm by what I said to the House this afternoon. If the House wishes to change a custom that has endured for many years and to change the whole character of Question Time, the House must consciously take a decision to do so.

Mr. Patrick Jenkin: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I wonder whether I may raise the question of hospital waiting lists which arose on Question No. 11. I invited the Secretary of State to recognise that, in an earlier Answer at the end of last year, he had misled the House about the expenditure of £9½ million for the National Health Service to reduce waiting lists. The Secretary of State denied that he had misled the House. On 22nd November last year he said:
The amount of money available to assist the Health Service has also increased. The health authorities are spending £9½ million this year."—[Official Report, 22nd November 1977; Vol. 939, c. 1291.]

Mr. Speaker: Order. The right hon. Gentleman should make a point of order that I can answer rather than score a point.

Mr. Jenkin: I wish to establish that right hon. and hon. Members on both sides of the House were misled and that, indeed, one of the right hon. Gentleman's colleagues in another place was misled. In those circumstances, is it not open to you, Mr. Speaker, to invite the right hon.

Gentleman to say that, however inadvertently, he did in fact mislead the House?

Mr. Speaker: The general custom is for a motion to be put down on the Order Paper rather than to seek to raise the matter in this way.

Mr. Ridsdale: On a further point of order, Mr. Speaker. In reply to Question No. 1, the Prime Minister said that there was to be a statement by the Secretary of State for Trade about Japanese cars. Am I to understand that there is to be no such statement?

The Prime Minister: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. Perhaps I may clear up that matter quickly. I certainly meant to say that the Secretary of State was to answer a Question on that matter. There is a Written Question on the Order Paper about that issue.

STATUTORY INSTRUMENTS, &c.

Ordered,
That the Fishing Boats (Faroe Islands) Designation (No. 2) Order 1978 (S.I., 1978, No. 288) be referred to a Standing Committee on Statutory Instruments, &amp;c.—[Mr. Jim Marshall.]

NEW MEMBER

The following Member took and subscribed the Oath:

Vivian Walter Hugh Bendall, Esq., for Ilford, North.

Mr. Speaker: The reason why the usual custom of new Members signing the book was not followed was that for some reason the book was not available at that moment.

DISABLED PERSONS (MOBILITY AFTER RETIREMENT)

3.48 p.m.

Mr. Tony Newton: I beg to move
That leave be given to bring in a Bill to authorise payment from the National Insurance Fund to persons over pensionable age of a mobility allowance equivalent to any mobility allowance awarded to them before reaching that age.
As the House will recall, the mobility allowance began to be introduced rather more than two years ago. It is an allowance to help those severely disabled


people who are unable to walk, or virtually unable to do so, with the financial problems of getting about.
Because of practical problems—in particular the need for medical examinations in many cases—the allowance is being phased in by age groups, and that process is not yet complete. The eventual aim is to make it available to all those who are qualified between the ages of five and the pensionable age—that is to say 60 for women and 65 for men.
For a step which has been generally welcome, the allowance has had rather more than its fair share of controversy. There has been controversy over the rates—originally £5, now £7, and soon to be £10—and whether they are sufficient. There has been controversy about allowances being taxed and whether they should be taxable. Above all, there has been controversy about the phasing out of the three-wheeler which has come to be associated with the allowance and which in due course led to the Motability scheme, in which, with private sector help, the allowance could be more effectively used to help the disabled to buy and run a car.
But, fourthly, there has been controversy about the cut-off at pensionable age. It is with one limited aspect—I emphasise the phrase "limited aspect"—of that part of the controversy that my Bill seeks to deal.
I emphasise that it does not seek to change the situation whereby new mobility allowances are not granted to those who are already over pensionable age. I have not sought to do that for two reasons. First, the cost of removing the age limit altogether has been estimated at £260 million. That is far too large a sum for a private Member to attempt to deal with under this procedure. Secondly, I think that in all honesty we must recognise that there is a real problem about extending the mobility allowance to all over pensionable age simply because it will be increasingly difficult to distinguish between disability in the conventional sense and the sheer consequences of old age. Therefore, I am not seeking to do that.
But we face a situation not only in which those who are already over pensionable age cannot get a new allowance but in which those who already have an allowance, when they reach pensionable

age, will lose it. In other words, at the very point when severely disabled people face the general financial problems of retirement, we are to add to those problems by taking from them a gross extra income of £520 a year at the forthcoming rates of mobility allowance.
Putting the matter another way, the very purpose of the Motability scheme is to assist the severely disabled through the allowance with buying and running a car. As soon as we think of that, we recognise that to withdraw the allowance when such people retire is tantamount to saying to them "Now that you have retired, we do not see any more need for you to get about. The right thing for you to do is to stay at home." That is a heartless attitude. That is what I want to change.
One subsidiary aspect has been brought to my attention in my conversations with hon. Members and others in the last few months. I refer to those approaching retirement who have not yet been, but will be, phased into the allowance over the next year or two. I have a constituent in the age group above 55, which the mobility allowance has not reached. He is severely disabled. His family have clubbed together to buy him a modest car, which he is now struggling to run. He approached me because he was desperately worried that the escalator of his rising age would keep him permanently ahead of the age group in which he would get an allowance.
With the Minister's help, in a courteous letter, I was able to assure him that at some time within the next year or 18 months he should be able to get the allowance if he proved to be qualified. Of course, I could not assure him that he would get it, because I could not make the medical judgment. But what I had to tell him was that, even if he qualified for the allowance at some time in the next year or 18 months, within a year or two after that it would be taken from him again. That is the situation which we should change. There are many people in that position.
The purpose of my Bill is to stop that happening. Although for procedural reasons it has had to be cast in the form of apparently inventing a new allowance, its essential effect would be to provide that anyone already getting a mobility allowance when he reaches pensionable


age would be able to go on getting it afterwards. I do not pretend that if that situation came about it would be entirely free of anomalies. But I think that the anomalies would be less glaring and indefensible than the present prospect.
Moreover, I believe that when we consider the problems of the disabled person who has not been able to work in the normal way during his working life, and therefore has not been able to build up for the financial problems of retirement, it is not unreasonable to giant such people special consideration under the mobility allowance in their retirement.
The cost of my proposal would he modest. The Minister has estimated it at £2½ million. However, I should guess that it would be a little less when account is taken of the fact that the allowance is taxable and, in some hands, would bear tax. On that figuring, if my arithmetic is right, about 5,000 people will be affected in the first year when the allowance starts to be withdrawn—namely, 1980.
If I sought to be controversial, I should point out that £2½ million is very little more in a year than—about the same as—the losses of the British Steel Corporation in a single working day. I believe that if we plan for it now, in the context of our social security expenditure, this modest annual cost could be managed.
The problem has not yet arisen. Because of the way the allowance is being phased in, it will be 1980 before people begin to lose it. But there is already a great deal of anxiety. I believe that when it starts to happen there will be hardship and protests which Parliament will not easily be able to ignore.
My Bill seeks for once to deal with a problem before it arises and to relieve anxiety before it builds up any further. I hope and believe that it will be supported by hon. Members on both sides of the House who care about the problems of the disabled.

Question put and agreed to.

Bill ordered to be brought in by Mr. Tony Newton, Mrs. Lynda Chalker, Mr. Robert Boscawen, Mr. John Cope, Mr. Robin Hodgson, Mr. Giles Shaw, Dr. Gerard Vaughan, Sir George Young and Mr. Michael Mates.

DISABLED PERSONS (MOBILITY AFTER RETIREMENT)

Mr. Tony Newton accordingly presented a Bill to authorise payment from the National Insurance Fund to persons over pensionable age of a mobility allowance equivalent to any mobility allowance awarded to them before reaching that age; And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time upon Friday 12th May and to be printed. [Bill 73.]

Orders of the Day — WALES BILL

[3RD ALLOTTED DAY]

Considered in Committee. [Progress, 2nd March.]

[Mr. Oscar Murton in the Chair]

3.57 p.m.

Sir Raymond Gower: On a point of order, Mr. Murton. I apologise to you and to the Committee for raising one matter again.
Last weekend many of us obtained the impression that the guillotine was operating to exclude discussion on particular parts of the Bill—above all, the relationship between this legislation and possible changes in local government. This is a matter of deep concern.
I appreciate that you, Mr. Murton, and the Committee are in great difficulty. We are almost hamstrung by the procedural problem. Yet I hope that something can be done to solve this problem; otherwise, there will be grave misunderstanding outside if we fail to discuss what many people regard as one of the most important parts of the Bill.
I wonder whether anything can be done. Is it possible for the Government to co-operate to introduce a motion to vary the terms which bind our discussion? I plead with the Government and all present to appreciate that this is a matter of the utmost importance, as has been revealed not only in correspondence that I have received, but in conversations with many of my constituents over the weekend.

Mr. Ioan Evans: On a similar point of order, Mr. Murton. My point relates specifically to Clause 13. As you know, I have raised this matter on two previous occasions. I fear that we may reach 7 o'clock this evening without having had adequate discussion on a vital clause—Clause 13—which calls upon the Assembly to review the structure of local government in Wales and to report its conclusions to the Secretary of State.
I understand the difficulty of trying to select all the amendments and clauses that must be dealt with before 7 o'clock. How-

ever, according to the list of amendments, there will have to be 32 debates before we reach the amendments dealing with Clause 13. I believe it is physically impossible to have an adequate discussion on 32 groups of amendments before we reach Clause 13. It is regrettable, but it appears that the House will have to reach without adequate discussion a decision on an immediate issue of importance that will affect the decision in Wales about whether we shall have an Assembly.
I understand that it might be possible for us to make reference to the matter because it is related to Schedule 2. May I have your ruling, Mr. Murton, that we shall be able to discuss this matter on amendments to Schedule 2? Otherwise the Committee will not have the opportunity to debate a matter which is of paramount concern to local government in Wales and which involves both district and county councils.

The Chairman: I am grateful to the hon. Member for Aberdare (Mr. Evans) for raising this point of order. Indeed, I expected it to be raised. The Chair has to abide by the terms of the Business Resolution which was passed by the House. The Chair also has a duty to make a provisional selection of amendments. It has done that.
The suggestion has been made that some reference to this issue could be made when we reach Government Amendment No. 52. I am aware that Amendment No. 73 is the last amendment to be taken before 7 o'clock. I know that hon. Members desire to debate that issue, but I regret that, with the best will in the world, I cannot allow this. Clause 13, in all respects, goes beyond the matter that will be discussed on Government Amendment No. 52. The difference is fundamental. I am genuinely sorry that I cannot allow it.

Mr. Dafydd Wigley: Further to that point of order, Mr. Murton. I appreciate the matter that has been raised and I shall try to be of help to the Committee. Would it not be possible to bring in many of the issues that hon. Members wish to raise under Amendment No. 53 which has been selected for discussion with Amendment No. 52? I know that it does not cover the exact powers of Clause 13 but I am sure that that solution would afford some scope for debate.

Mr. Neil Kinnock: Further to that point of order, Mr. Murton. There is a shift of unusual hope coming from the Plaid Cymru Benches. In view of your previous ruling, which I understand to be offered with the best of will and in an attempt to help the Committee, there will be limitations on discussions on the important question of local government reform because an opportunity is not given to scrutinise and debate Clause 13. I know that your job is particularly difficult, Mr. Murton, because of the cramped way in which we are to discuss this Bill, but the Welsh people are anxious about the whole question of local government reform. Indeed, my right hon. Friend the Member for Anglesey (Mr. Hughes), in an uncharacteristic exaggeration, said last Thursday that it was a popular clause. That is a question that we should debate.
The idea is a jewel in the Government's crown and, if I may be allowed to mix my metaphors, the Government deliberately want to hide under a bushel in the way that they wish to conduct the guillotine. It is important for us to have a clear avenue in which to discuss the issues that are involved in Clause 13.
I hope that you, Mr. Murton, will use the maximum generosity when we discuss Amendments Nos. 52 and 53, by not excluding any considerations that might arise which are not specifically included in the amendments.

The Chairman: The great problem with which the Chair is faced in reviewing the amendments which have been mentioned is that Government Amendment No. 52 and Amendment No. 53 deal with existing powers, whereas Clause 13 is different: it concerns the review of the structure. I understand the concern that has been expressed by hon. Members, but there is also a secondary point. If one were to allow a debate on the terms of Clause 13 at an earlier stage it would cut out many other important amendments. The Chair feels that that should not be allowed to happen. I am bound by the terms of the timetable motion.

Sir Raymond Gower: Further to that point of order, Mr. Murton. Is it not appalling that discussion on constitutional changes of this magnitude should be prevented by the terms of a guillotine? Constitutional changes of this kind should not be dealt with in this manner. It is

inconsistent with our reputation for democratic discussion. Discussion has been stifled at an important point.

The Chairman: The hon. Member for Barry (Sir R. Gower) makes these comments but the Chair is in no position to answer them.

Mr. Ioan Evans: Further to that point of order, Mr. Murton. We have less than three hours, until 7 o'clock, for 32 debates. Between 7 o'clock and 11 o'clock there are five debates. Is it possible to ask my right hon. Friends, through you, to allow Clause 13 to be taken earlier than proposed? Is it possible to change the timetable? I voted for the guillotine. If I had known what was going to happen I should have voted differently.

The Chairman: The hon. Member for Aberdare has had an ingenious idea. However, the guillotine has been approved by right hon. and hon. Members and there is nothing to do but to accept the terms of it. That is the timetable motion and that is the way in which we must proceed.

Schedule 2

EXISTING STATUTORY FUNCTIONS

The Minister of State, Privy Council Office (Mr. John Smith): I beg to move Amendment No. 50, in page 36, line 27, column 2, at end insert:
'The function under section 5(3)(b) of determining disputes between a local authority and excepted statutory undertakers.'.
This corrects a minor error in the entry in paragraph 1 of Schedule 2 for the Local Government (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1953. At present the entry transfers all ministerial functions under this Act to the Assembly. However Section 5(3)(b) of the Act contains the rarely used ministerial function of determining disputes between local authorities and statutory undertakers concerning the erection of bus shelters by local authorities. The effect of the amendment is that the function will be exercisable by the Government, not the Assembly, where an excepted statutory undertaker is involved in the dispute.

Mr. Kinnock: It is difficult to understand my hon. Friend. Is he saying that the power to erect omnibus shelters will not be devolved? If so, I am utterly shocked and dismayed.

Mr. Smith: It has been my function to reassure my hon. Friend the Member for Bedwellty (Mr. Kinnock) on some of his wilder thoughts. I am delighted to be able to reassure him on this occasion. This amendment concerns disputes between statutory undertakers and local authorities.
Excepted statutory undertakers are denned in Clause 81(1) and include all undertakers for whom the Government will continue to be responsible—for example the British Gas Corporation and British Rail. It is policy throughout the Bill that functions in relation to such undertakers should be reserved or exercisable subject to consent. The amendment brings the entry for the 1953 Act into line with this policy. It is a technical amendment. I hope that it finds favour because it improves the Bill.

Mr. Wyn Roberts: We do not intend to waste time on this amendment, or on the one that follows it. The mind of the hon. Member for Bedwellty (Mr. Kinnock) will be put at rest if he puts this amendment in the context of the relevant chapter of the Act which deals with the power of local authorities to establish certain funds for the provision and maintenance of bus shelters and queue barriers. The amendment assumes that any such cause for dispute would involve a statutory undertaker. Is that a wise assumption? Ought not the Government to have limited the words of the amendment to
The function under section 5(3)(b).",
which procedure has been followed in Amendment No. 54?

Mr. Ioan Evans: The amendment refers to
line 27 … at end insert
but at the end of line 27 are the words "Enactment" and "Excluded junctions". Presumably the amendment should have been made to line 28, otherwise the wording does not read on.
The question under discussion seems to concern undertakers. I believe that the Bill will be going to the undertakers

when the matter is put to the people of Wales.

Mr. John Smith: The hon. Member for Conway (Mr. Roberts) asks why we have limited the provision to statutory undertakers. The policy followed throughout the Bill is that the functions relating to statutory undertakings should be either reserved or exercisable subject to consent. That is the line of policy followed in the amendment, and that was why we decided that matters concerning disputes between local authorities and accepted statutory undertakers should be reserved.
I think that the printing of the amendment is correct, but I shall check the point raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Aberdare (Mr. Evans).

Mr. Wigley: The amendment appears to be fairly trivial, but I cannot follow the Government's logic in differentiating as they have between Section 5(3)(b) of the Local Government (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1953 and paragraph (a) of that same section. The latter refers to a dispute between a local authority and the Minister of Transport being referred to and determined by an arbitrator. Presumably only matters that did not fall within that definition would go to the Minister of Transport.
The list of statutory undertakers in Clause 81 of the Bill is essential. It deals with
any railway, light railway, road transport, dock, harbour, pier or lighthouse undertaking or any undertaking for the supply of electricity, gas or hydraulic power".
But it deals only with these matters in relation to Wales. I cannot see why it is necessary to relate those to the Ministry of Transport. In any case, it is a question of arbitrating in a dispute. I would have thought that the Assembly was perfectly competent to arbitrate in a dispute even though it might not have all the powers for all the functions concerning the accepted statutory undertakers referred to in Clause 81. If the Government are seeking to devolve as much as possible, surely there is no case for saying that the matter must be kept in London when the Assembly can do the job perfectly competently.

Mr. John Smith: The hon. Member referred to Section 5(3)(a) of the Local Government (Miscellaneous Provisions)


Act 1953 which deals with disputes between a local authority and the Minister of Transport which will be referred to an arbitrator to be appointed. In this context the Assembly will carry out the functions of the Ministry of Transport, and that is therefore a different matter.
The hon. Member says that he does not see why we should not devolve these matters. As I have explained, however, it is clear policy in the Bill that functions relating to statutory undertakers should be reserved or should be exercisable subject to consent. The hon. Member may not agree with the Government's retaining responsibility for the statutory undertakers, but It is our policy, and it is upon that that we rest.

Mr. Ian Gow: Ought not the Minister of State to be able to clear up the simple point raised by the hon. Member for Aberdare (Mr. Evans)? Part 1 of Schedule 2 is difficult enough to comprehend as it is. As the hon. Member pointed out, line 27 contains the words "Enactment" and "Excluded functions". Should not the Minister's amendment be changed by manuscript amendment now? Ought we not to be amending line 28?

Mr. John Smith: I think that the amendment is correct as it stands, but I have given an undertaking to have the matter checked.

The Chairman: I am convinced that it is correct. It is a matter of printing that will come right in the Bill.

Sir David Renton: I think that my hon. Friend the Member for Eastbourne (Mr. Gow) will find that the same method is used in several other places. It is either right in all of them or wrong in all of them.

The Chairman: I am glad to have the right hon. and learned Gentleman's support on that. What he says is the case.

Amendment agreed to.

4.15 p.m.

Mr. John Smith: I beg to move Amendment No. 51, in page 36, line 34, column 2, at end insert—
The power to fix rates of interest in respect of advances made under section 3 or 4 for the erection of industrial buildings (within the meaning of section 66 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1971 (c. 78)).

The amendment corrects a minor error in the entry in Part I of Schedule 2 for the Local Authorities (Land) Act 1963. At present the entry transfers all ministerial functions under this Act to the Assembly. Sections 3 and 4 of the Act enables local authorities to make loans for the erection of buildings on land sold or let by them; and Section 3(4) provides that the Minister may in the case of a particular advance fix the rate of interest for such loans. The effect of the amendment is that this function of fixing the interest rate should continue to be exercised by the Minister, and not be transferred to the Assembly, in cases in which the loans are in respect of industrial buildings.
Although certain powers of industrial development, for example, by the Welsh Development Agency, are transferred to the Assembly by the Bill, there are always safeguards to ensure that the Assembly cannot distort competition between firms in Wales and elsewhere. The purpose of the amendment is to reflect this approach by ensuring that any loans for the erection of industrial buildings are not made at interest rates which are more favourable than those available in other areas.

Mr. Wyn Roberts: This is another addition to excluded functions and it refers to the Local Government (Records) Act 1962. Section 3 of that Act, which is referred to in the amendment, deals with the power of local authorities to appoint sub-committees to perform functions in relation to records. Section 4 deals with the financing of record preservation functions. What these sections have to do with the erection of industrial buildings is not immediately clear, but one can guess what has happened. The maintenance of records has now become a major business requiring the erection of buildings which can be classified as industrial buildings. These cost money which is available from local authority or Exchequer sources according to Section 4 of the 1962 Act.
The reference in the amendment to the power to fix interest rates presumably refers to the moneys that may be provided by Parliament under Section 4 of the Act, and I shall be glad of the Minister's confirmation of that.

Mr. Wigley: On a point of order, Mr. Murton. I regret having to interrupt the hon. Member for Conway (Mr. Roberts), but he is referring to an Act which does not appear in the amendment. His error is probably due to the numbering of the lines, which appears to be wrong. The amendment refers to line 34, whereas the relevant line in the schedule is line 35. The hon. Member for Conway is referring to the wrong Act.

Mr. John Smith: Perhaps the hon. Member for Conway (Mr. Roberts) was slightly misled by the printing, but I think that he grasped the essential point which is more important than getting the right line. He asked me to confirm the approach which I explained in introducing the amendment which is that it is for the purpose of avoiding the distortion of competition between firms in Wales and elsewhere. It refers to the letting of land and the interest rate fixed by the Minister. Those are reserved. The hon. Gentleman got the point absolutely, although he referred to a different Act. The Act in question is the Local Authorities (Land) Act 1963. There is, however, no difference between us on the essential point.

Mr. Wigley: I wish to underline the importance of industrial development powers for the Assembly and for local authorities in Wales coming under the Local Authorities (Land) Act 1963. It is a fact, whether it is intended or not by Westminster legislation, that local authorities have the power to influence the attractiveness of an area to industry. Only last night I was hearing of the way in which industrialists, notably the Japanese, have been attracted to Merthyr Tydfil to sites provided by the Welsh Development Agency because of initiatives taken by a district council, in this case Merthyr Borough Council. That council has taken initiatives in providing land and buildings for industry in a way that undoubtedly gave the area a differential of attractiveness compared with some other area, perhaps in the same geographical region, which had had its industrial infrastructure provided by the Welsh Development Agency. Therefore, whether or not one puts the control on the rate of interest, the reality of the situation is that there is extensive power in the hands of local authorities to provide facilities in infrastructure and services that will make a differentiation

between their areas and others which do not undertake such initiatives.
To the extent that we allow, acknowledge and accept that local authorities validly can take these initiatives, and are right to do so, to try to meet the employment problems of their areas, I cannot see why within the global controls that exist on local authority finance—and goodness knows those are severe enough, for they can hardly move in any direction without some restriction—it should not be possible for local authorities to vary the interest rates they charge on the amount of funds they have at their disposal for these functions.
The sum of money we are discussing is minute. I do not know whether this legislation arises under EEC powers for securing competition but if it is against that background what we are discussing is peanuts. But it can make a marginal difference, particularly when a small company is just setting up and is having difficulty with high interest rates. In the last two or three years abnormally high interest rates have made it impossible for many small companies to start up or expand and to take advantage of the facilities which local authorities have been providing in various parts of Wales and will certainly provide after the Assembly comes into existence.
I cannot see, therefore, why it should not be part of the power of a local authority to use the loan funds it has at its disposal to reduce the interest rate on those elements that come through the provisions of the Local Authorities (Land) Act 1963. I realise that the Minister will say "Yes, that is precisely what I would like to see, but it is not what the Act is intended to facilitate". I suggest to him that there is nothing inconsistent in considering that; and even if the Government had not intended it in the first place, when the Bill was printed in its present form, it is a form which should commend itself to them because of the additional power given to local authorities to help to solve the industrial problems of Wales.

Mr. Nick Budgen: May I say a word or two on the concept of exorbitant interest rates? Wolverhampton previously was very prosperous but it has been severely affected by Government interference of


all kinds, especially by Government interference in subsidising industries in other parts of the United Kingdom. It is precisely because hon. Members like the hon. Member for Caernarvon (Mr. Wigley) have so often said there was great need to subsidise their constituents, and a need to prevent their constituents having to pay, as they put it, exorbitant rates of interest, which I understand to be the way in which any market rate of interest is regarded by anybody who has to pay it.

Mr. Wigley: Surely the hon. Gentleman would accept that in the past, particularly during the last 18 months when interest rates were running at 15 per cent. to 18 per cent., that has meant that the money-factoring industry has had to adjust risk investment in such a way as to give perhaps 30 per cent. on capital; and given the constraint of competition within the EEC that we are forced to face, that rate cannot be described as anything but an exorbitant rate which has been carried by manufacturing industry.

Mr. Budgen: Of course it is a high rate and it kills investment, but it is not an exorbitant rate for anybody lending money at a time when, at given stages, he is suffering a decline in the value of money of between 25 per cent. and 30 per cent. per annum. Therefore, interest rates, though high, are in fact negative.
It is a point which should be levelled against the present Administration which has presided over a period of unparalled high rates of inflation, but that is not an argument for further distorting the market economy to prop up little businesses in Wales, perhaps in an area which happens to have a particularly vocal Member of Parliament who wishes to roll out the pork barrel for his constituents. What Wolverhampton and every other constituency wants is a great deal more free market and less of the political log rolling about which the hon. Gentleman has spoken.

Sir Raymond Gower: My hon. Friend will appreciate that ever since the end of the last war successive Governments have recognised that areas like Wolverhampton have had a much more variegated pattern of industry and far more alternative employers than area; like most of Scotland, parts of Wales, the North-East of England and Merseyside, which have been

handicapped by having very few industries and have suffered much more viciously in the inter-war years. I hope that my hon. Friend will recall that.

Mr. Budgen: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his intervention. If he has been a supporter of regional policies in the past, I remind him that their purpose was not only to support a region but to damp down economic growth in more prosperous areas; and in so far as there is now a high rate of unemployment in Wolverhampton—

The Chairman (Mr. Oscar Murton): Order. The hon. Gentleman is now confusing the question of merits with the question of functions. This amendment deals with the question of functions.

Mr. Budgen: With respect, Mr. Murton, I was dealing generally with interfering in market rates and particularly in interest rates; and with great respect to you, Sir, this is part of the general question of a regional policy.
I conclude by saying that I congratulate my hon. Friend in that Wolverhampton has been depressed and impoverished by regional policies and those who support such policies are to be congratulated on the success of their activities.

Mr. Gow: This amendment seeks to reserve to the Minister powers which otherwise would be transferred to the Assembly. I listened carefully to the Minister when he introduced his amendment. He, or the Official Report, will correct me if I am wrong, but I thought I heard the Minister of State tell the Committee that the sections which are referred to in the amendment, which unfortunately do not refer to the Act, were Sections 3 or 4. I submit that the reference should be to Sections 3 and 4, but we shall let that pass.
I thought that the Minister told the Committee that the Act of Parliament whose reserve powers were to vest in the Minister derived from the Local Government (Records) Act 1962.

Mr. John Smith: If the hon. Gentleman will allow me to intervene, I said no such thing. I referred clearly to the Local Authorities (Land) Act 1963. It was another hon. Member who referred to the Local Government (Records) Act


1962, I believe in error. I categorically deny that I made any such reference as the hon. Gentleman suggests. Perhaps he should listen more attentively.

Mr. Wyn Roberts: Will the Minister give an assurance that, as the amendment refers to "line 34" and there is opposite to that a reference to the Local Government (Records) Act 1962, he will look at this matter again and ensure that the amendment refers to the proper line?

Mr. Smith: Yes. This matter arose on the previous amendment. The amendment is correct as it stands, although I can understand how hon. Members may be misled by the way in which it appears. I have given an undertaking to check that carefully.

Mr. Roberts: With respect, I do not believe the numbering is correct as it stands. The schedule is confusing enough already without Ministers adding to the confusion. I believe that the wrong line is mentioned in the amendment moved by the Government.

The Chairman: It is highly probable because a reference to the Local Authorities (Land) Act appears in line 35 and the remainder appears in the following line. However, the hon. Gentleman need not trouble himself too much about this matter. It will be put right.

Amendment agreed to.

4.30 p.m.

Mr. John Smith: I beg to move Amendment No. 52, in page 37, column 1, leave out lines 2 to 26 and insert—
'The Local Government Act 1972 (c. 70) sections 55, 68(1) to (7) and 74 and Parts V to IX, XI and XII.'.

The Chairman: With this we may take Amendment No. 53, in page 37, line 4, column 1, leave out 'section 55(4)' and insert
'sections 53 to 61 and section 64'.
We may also take Government Amendments Nos. 54, 55 and 56.

Mr. Smith: The amendments are minor in character and tidy up a number of inconsistencies in the entries for the Local Government Act 1972 in Part I of Schedule 2.
Amendment No. 52 reorganises the column 1 entries for the 1972 Act so

that they are all placed in a single group. At present, the spacing in column 1 is such that the column 2 entries for Schedules 12 and 13 of the 1972 Act are incorrectly lined up opposite Parts XI and XII of that Act when they belong to Parts V and VIII. The amendment, which is purely technical, removes this error.
Amendment No. 55 is again purely technical. It removes an unnecessary entry for Sections 245 to 247 of the 1972 Act from the list of exclusions in column 2. These sections which are consequential on the reorganisation of local government, relate to the granting of borough status to district and community councils, and the transfer of Royal charters and armorial bearings. In each case they contain powers exercisable by Her Majesty on the advice of the Privy Council or by Order in Council, and the intention is that they should not pass to the Assembly.
However, Clause 10 of the Bill is expressed in such terms that the only functions transferred to the Assembly by inclusion in column 1 of Schedule 2 are those exercisable by Ministers. Order in Council powers are not ministerial, so in order to achieve reservation there is no need specifically to list Sections 245 to 247 in column 2 as being excluded. Silence is sufficient to ensure that the powers contained in them are not transferred to the Assembly.
Amendment No. 56 excludes ministerial functions under Schedule 12 of the 1972 Act from those transferred to the Assembly. The schedule concerns the meetings and proceedings of local authorities, and contains only two ministerial functions in relation to Wales. Both relate to polls consequent on community council meetings. The first, in paragraph 34(5), is already correctly excluded as presently drafted. The effect of the amendment is to exclude the second, which is in paragraph 37(1). This reflects the broader policy that all electoral matters including those relating to local authorities are to be reserved. This will arise on Amendment No. 53.
Amendment No. 54 is a technical amendment and there is essentially no change in policy. Section 119 of the Local Government Act 1972 provides for the making of an advance to widows or dependants of those who have been in


local government or linked services until probate has been settled.

Sir Raymond Gower: Is it the case that, before this amendment, the Bill provided that electoral matters were not reserved?

Mr. Smith: No. We are seeking to correct a minor matter by way of Amendment No. 56. Electoral boundaries are reserved. Amendment No. 53 in the name of the hon. Member for Caernarvon (Mr. Wigley) seeks to reverse that position by transferring responsibility for electoral boundaries to the Assembly. It would be wise to allow the hon. Member to explain his amendment before my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for Wales deals with it.
The ministerial regulation-making powers deal with applying the powers to various classes of employees under the local government superannuation scheme. Although this matter is not strictly part of the superannuation scheme it relates to it more than to any of the devolved aspects of local government. Local government superannuation is not devolved and is best dealt with also on a uniform basis for England and Wales.
I hope that the House will find our amendments acceptable. We shall have to discuss Amendment No. 53 before the Government amendments can be passed.

Mr. Wigley: Amendment No. 53 broadens the issue slightly and brings in local government's relationship with the Assembly, albeit in the context of a Boundary Commission and related matters.
I must stress the feeling of dissatisfaction in Wales over local government matters following the reorganisation of local government undertaken by the last Conservative Government.
There are areas of great concern, most of which relate to the growth of bureaucracy and the clogging-up of the system of local government because of the present structure. One problem that arises frequently in public and private meetings is planning. Planning applications are submitted to district councils, moved up to county councils to see whether they are within the framework of a county plan and downwards to community coun-

cils for their blessing. They can also go backwards and forwards on technical points. I am told that if they were returned, reversed or stopped at every point at which they can be disputed, they could be stopped on 24 occasions.

Mr. D. E. Thomas: Is my hon. Friend aware that planning applications can also be called in by the Secretary of State under various sections of Town Planning Acts? There was a particularly reprehensible case in my constituency. The district council's application for a refuse disposal unit was called in by the Secretary of State who organised a public inquiry and decided that the council could not go ahead.
The Welsh Office also intervenes in other areas and, since the process is quasi-judicial, the reasons for the intervention cannot be questioned. The transfer of these functions to the Assembly would result in far more democratic decision-making in planning.

Mr. Wigley: I certainly accept what my hon. Friend says. I was stressing the delay in planning applications between the initial submission and their resolution. These delays cause great dissatisfaction and irritation among people in Wales and the splitting of the planning function has made the situation worse.
County authorities have planning departments staffed by specialists and district councils have their own specialists in planning departments. There is often a large area of overlapping. We also see duplication of functions in the services provided by district and county councils in Wales, including legal, financial and computer services. We need a back-up service for district and county councils.
Before I came to the House I had the advantage of serving on the old Merthyr Tydfil County Borough Council, which was an all-purpose authority. There was a great advantage in having all the functions relating to the borough under one hat. The problems arising from demarcation between social services, which are now a county function, and housing, which is a district function did not arise to half the extent that they do under the current set-up. Demarcation between education and functions such as planning, now undertaken by district councils, did not arise. The functions were all under one hat.
If one imagined that the Bains principle would be adopted in local government after reorganisation and that there would be a policy directorate in local government to ensure that all departmental functions were co-ordinated, a logical corollary would be to have the type of all-purpose authority that existed in some of the county boroughs before reorganisation. I believe that that would be beneficial in Wales.

Sir Raymond Gower: I am interested in what the hon. Gentleman says, but can he explain how the amendments will effect this great change? I cannot understand it.

Mr. Wigley: I was stating this by way of background to the issue of the local government structure in Wales. Clause 13, which we cannot discuss in detail in this short debate, provides that the Assembly will have the authority to
review the structure of local government in Wales".
If that is so, the powers provided in Section 53 and subsequent sections of the Local Government Act 1972 should also go to the Assembly.
Amendment No. 53 relates to proposals for changes in local government areas and boundaries and for substantive changes in electoral arrangements for local authorities in Wales. Section 53 of the 1972 Act sets up the Local Government Boundary Commission for Wales. The remaining sections referred to in the amendment set out the functions of the Wales Boundary Commission and of the Secretary of State regarding alterations in boundaries between county, district and community councils, and with regard to substantive changes in electoral arrangements for all such local authorities in Wales."
The Bill provides that the Secretary of State's functions will be retained by him. Our amendment provides that they should be discharged by the Assembly. These functions include, first, the power to direct the Commission to conduct a review of Wales as a whole or of any one or more local government area or part of such area in Wales. Secondly, the Commission should make proposals to the Secretary of State for effecting changes appearing to the Commission desirable in the interests of effective and convenient local government. Thirdly, the Secretary of State has power, if he thinks fit, to

give effect by order to any proposals made to him by the Commission, either as submitted to him or with modifications.
These functions relate exclusively to local government in Wales. Their discharge has no relevance to or any effect on local government in any other part of the United Kingdom. They are precisely the kind of functions that should be discharged by the Assembly, and are eminently suitable for discharge by it, as the Assemblymen will have expert local knowledge—in each case. It must be difficult for any Secretary of State to have such knowledge when he is reviewing such recommendations.
It is strange that the Government have seen fit to retain those functions while rightly proposing that the vast majority of the Secretary of State's functions in relation to local government in Wales should be discharged by the Assembly. As the Assembly will have power to discharge most of the Secretary of State's functions, under the Local Government Act 1972, it appears incongruous that the functions in the sections referred to in my amendment have been retained.
In the event of the amendments being accepted, we should be happy to see the provisions of Schedule 11 of the 1972 Act—
Rules to be Observed in Considering Electoral Arrangements 
—made applicable to the Assembly as they now are applicable to the Secretary of State. No doubt the Government could look after this by a consequential change in Section 78 of the 1972 Act, either during the passage of the Bill or under Clause 80 when the Bill is enacted.
It would also appear to us that the amendment would be in accordance with the spirit of Clause 13, which provides that the Assembly should review the structure of local government in Wales. If it should appear to the Assembly, having carried out this review, that the structure of local government in Wales should be amended by alterations in boundaries between authorities, the Assembly could order the Commission to carry out a review of boundaries between local authorities, and it could implement the Commission's proposals without reference to the Secretary of State.
Therefore, there are valid and cogent reasons why the Secretary of State's functions in the sections referred to in the


amendment should be discharged by the Assembly. There is no logical reason why he should not be discharged of them by the Assembly and why they should not be undertaken by the Assembly. In the absence of such reason, one is forced to conclude that the Government's only reason for retaining the power is to enable the Secretary of State perhaps to change boundaries in a way that the Government would want rather than a way acceptable to Assemblymen.
4.45 p.m.
We believe that the Assemblymen in Cardiff will be people whom we can trust with this kind of work. We believe that they will be close to the reality of local problems. In the context of the Commission's work on parish councils and community councils in Wales, I have seen the need for local knowledge if a meaningful decision is to be taken. I have seen the boundaries of community councils drawn in the most obscure way and I have seen the great difficulties of persuading people who are not attached to an area, or do not have knowledge of it, of a need to have changes implemented.
That observation is equally valid of other units in local government, and is a reason for giving the ultimate decision to the Assemblymen representing all the areas of Wales. That would give more chance of ensuring that the units making up the new pattern would fit in with the pattern of existing communities.

Mr. Ioan Evans: The hon. Member for Caernarvon (Mr. Wigley) says that his amendment is in line with the spirit of Clause 13. If that is so, I hope that the Committee will reject the amendment, although, as the hon. Gentleman said, it gives us the opportunity of debating matters related to the clause without debating the terms of the clause. We are discussing the transfer of local government powers from the Secretary of State to the Assembly.
We should remember that the first page of the Explanatory and Financial Memorandum says:
This Bill gives effect for Wales to proposals described in the White Papers 'Our Changing Democracy: Devolution to Scotland and Wales' (Cmnd. 6348) and 'Devolution to Scotland and Wales: Supplementary Statement' (Cmnd. 6585)".

On page 47 of "Our Changing Democracy" we find that the White Paper said about local government:
Responsibility for central government supervision of most aspects of local government in Wales will be devolved. The administration will oversee the work of local authorities in devolved matters. It will allocate rate support grant to them, control their capital investment in the devolved fields and be responsible for the application of the local taxation system.
Then comes the important sentence:
The devolution Act will make no change in the structure of local government in Wales.
When the Scotland and Wales Bill was published I said that I believed that local government in Wales would be affected if the Bill were passed, although at that time there was no clause about reorganising local government. Then the Government Front Bench rightly accepted the advice of many on the Labour Benches that we should divide that Bill into two Bills. Now we find in this Bill Clause 13, which says specifically:
The Assembly shall review the structure of local government in Wales and shall report its conclusions to the Secretary of State.
Therefore, although the White Paper says that the Bill will have no effect on local government it certainly will have an effect.
This is an important matter, and we should spend some time on it. I believe that the Government have gone the wrong way about devolving powers to the people of Wales. When my right hon. Friend the Member for Anglesey (Mr. Hughes) was Secretary of State he said that we would try to have in Wales—I believe that this has been said, although the issue was not debated—one body covering the whole of Wales, with a unitary local authority underneath. If my right hon. Friend had been allowed to have his way at that time, which was before the Kilbrandon Commission met and before the reorganisation of local government by the Conservative Party, such a proposal would have been a sensible one that would have worked well in Wales.
What then happened? The Government set up the Crowther Commission and later the Kilbrandon Commission to look into the constitution of Wales. They then began to look at how we could improve the constitutional relationship between the people of Wales and of the rest of the United Kingdom. Unfortunately, while the Kilbrandon Commission


was discussing and determining what should be the remedy, the Conservative Party proceeded to reorganise local government.

Mr. Ian Grist: Will the hon. Member give way?

Mr. Evans: I shall give way in a moment, but I do not want to lose the thread of my argument.
The Conservative Party proceeded to reorganise local government. It did not do it in the best possible way. I am glad that I carry my hon. Friend the Member for Newport (Mr. Hughes) with me on that. My right hon. Friend the Member for Anglesey had a far better method of reorganising local government than that proposed by the Conservative Party. But what we have to take into account, and what the Government did not take into account when they produced their proposals for an Assembly, is that the Government proceeded on the evidence that the Conservative Party had put forward to Kilbrandon, ignored the fact that local government had been reorganised and proceeded to create an Assembly.
Therefore, we have the worst of both worlds. We have our community councils, district councils, county councils, a Welsh Office and a Secretary of State. As well as all those, we are now to have an Assembly. We have now reached a situation in which we are maintaining the existing structure and creating another tier of government. It is nonsense for my hon. Friends to suggest that the Welsh Assembly is not even a tier of government. To say that the Assembly is not a tier of government but that the community council, the district council or the county council is a tier of government is playing with words. It is true that powers are being transferred from the Welsh Office to the Welsh Assembly. But what we have is the Welsh Office, which is a form of tier of government in the House of Commons, and we are having another tier of government in the Welsh Assembly.

Mr. Grist: Is the hon. Member aware that the discussion on the White Paper of his right hon. Friend the Member for Anglesey (Mr. Hughes) was welcomed by most parties in Wales? Had his party gone ahead at that stage with those proposals, they would have met with general approval. Does he also remember

that following the Redcliffe-Maud Report on local government reform in England, it was proposed to have unitary authorities in South-East Wales and dual authorities in the rest of Wales? Was that not the maddest proposal ever, and did it not show that the Labour Party was not prepared to go ahead with reform at all?

Mr. Evans: I carry the hon. Member with me in saying that if we had resolved the matter in the way that my right hon. Friend the Member for Anglesey proposed, we should not have got into the difficulties we have in recent months.

Mr. D. E. Thomas: The hon. Member has just told us that this proposal now for a Welsh Assembly to have a review of local government is the worst of all possible worlds. Will he advise the Committee of the policy of the local authority in his constituency, the Cynon Valley Borough Council, towards a Welsh Assembly?

Mr. Evans: The Cynon Valley Borough Council has thrown out the White Paper. I do not know why the hon. Member is referring to both of my local authorities. I am one of the few Members who can say that not only is there a Labour Member in my constituency but a Labour local authority and a Labour county council. Both the county council and the borough council in the area I serve have rejected devolution. They have rejected the White Paper.

Mr. D. E. Thomas: This Bill?

Mr. Evans: I do not know whether it met yesterday, but the view of the Cynon Valley Borough Council is that it rejects the White Paper on which the Bill is based. That local authority is now intervening. I have told the hon. Member time and again that Plaid Cymru Members have been standing in my locality putting forward the views of his part) and they have been rejected time and again. Those candidates who fought for my party at county and borough levels have been strongly opposed to the ideas that Plaid Cymru represents.

Mr. D. E. Thomas: Will the hon. Member confirm that the Cynon Valley Borough Council supports the Bill?

Mr. Evans: I shall not make any such confirmation because, as I know it, the


Cynon Valley Borough Council has rejected the White Paper on which the Bill is based. There will be many other opportunities in the debate, and I shall return specifically to that point. To my knowledge, the vast majority of the members of the local authority who represent my party on the Cynon Valley Borough Council reject the establishment of an Assembly.

Mr. Roy Hughes: Does my hon. Friend agree that we are not dealing with the proposals of Plaid Cymru in the Bill? Presumably that party wants to go much further than the proposals in the Bill. Indeed, the essence of the Bill was unanimously agreed by the Members of the last Parliament. That is why the Government are now acting upon it. That is why they are acting upon the decisions that were arrived at then—and by my hon. Friend the Member for Bedwellty (Mr. Kinnock). He attended every meeting and was a party to the unanimous agreement that was reached.

Mr. Kinnock: Utter rubbish!

Mr. Evans: My hon. Friend the Member for Newport is quite right. I would not accuse the Government Front Bench of going all the way with Plaid Cymru. Heaven forbid that anything like that should happen. However, my hon. Friend must realise that in this discussion we are addressing ourselves to an amendment that Plaid Cymru has put forward.
To return to the argument I was developing, I believe that we went wrong. The difficulty with the present Bill is that the Government, realising that the previous Government had reorganised local government, thought to themselves "Look, this is difficult. We have reorganised local government once. We have uprooted it and created an anomaly in the present local government set-up. How can we say to people that we shall abolish the counties and the boroughs once again so soon?" In Wales the signposts are only beginning to go up to tell us where Dyfed, Gwynedd, Clwyd, Powys, Gwent and all the other counties are.

Mr. Caerwyn E. Roderick: As my hon. Friend has referred to what the Conservative Party did, will he agree that it pre-empted any kind of reorganisation along the lines of Crowther or Kilbrandon because it

jumped in and reorganised local government so that the scene could be set for the present situation, and it explained "We cannot reorganise local government again in view of the fact that we have done it a little while ago"? Can my hon. Friend set a date when we can start to think again about reorganising local government, or is he totally opposed to such reorganisation?

Mr. Evans: If my hon. Friend wants a quick answer, all I can say is that it will be some other time, but not now. My hon. Friend has confirmed what I have been saying—that the Conservative Party went ahead and reorganised local government, and that made it impossible for the present Government to bring forward proposals so soon, and, an omelette having been created, to try to unscramble the egg.
We are going to make changes, but we must not rush into making them. We must be sure that the next changes follow a complete examination, because in Wales we need not only to get the best form of local government but to take account of nominated bodies—a point that has been raised time and again in this Chamber.
5.0 p.m.
The Government went ahead with then-plans and tried to ignore the fact that local government reorganisation had taken place. They then introduced a measure which was to unify the kingdom, but it is creating a method that has built-in obsolescence. It cannot possibly survive the period ahead. Hon. Members who have interrupted me are more or less conceding that point.
In Wales we cannot possibly have a system in which there are community councils, borough councils, county councils, the Welsh Office, a Welsh Assembly and a Secretary of State. I repeat what I have said elsewhere: London has 9 million people, and has a county council and metropolitan boroughs. Yet we have all these forms of government in Wales. What is proposed cannot survive.
Therefore, if we make changes we must make them correctly. We must not proceed with the Bill and then hand matters over to a new Assembly. We do not know what the composition of the Assembly will be. We do not know what


the expertise of its Members will be or of what political complexion it may be. That matter may be of relevance to some hon. Members. We do not know what experience the Members of the Assembly will have had. The vast majority may be ex-county councillors, but we do not know. It is possible that we shall elect to the Assembly people who have no experience of local government whatsoever. That is a hypothetical consideration that we should bear in mind.

Mr. Roderick: It would be a good thing.

Mr. Evans: My hon. Friend says that it would be a good thing, but we are organising an Assembly and transferring power to it, and it is important that its Members should have some knowledge of local government.

Mr. Roderick: How many Members of the House of Commons had experience of local government when Parliament reorganised local government previously?

Mr. Evans: I think that my hon. Friend will find that there are many hon. Members who have had local government experience. There are many barristers and journalists in the House, but on the Labour Benches, and on the Conservative Benches, very many hon. Members have had local government experience and have served on local authorities. Even if an hon. Member has not served on a local authority, is there any who can say that he has not had considerable experience of dealing with local government? Every Member has had some sort of local government experience.
Here, however, we are going to elect an Assembly, and we do not know its composition.

Mr. Kinnock: Is not the great difference, in any case, between the House of Commons considering comprehensive local government reform and the Assembly conceivably doing so that the House of Commons, as the law-making body—which the Assembly apparently will not be—bears a responsibility for both the evolution of the powers and the fulfilment of those powers, and for the response to those powers, and therefore carries all the can and is not, there-

fore, interested in trying to ride some local bandwagon without having the responsibility of fulfilling its own plans, which may be the characteristic of the Assembly in this respect and in many other respects?

Mr. Evans: Further to that, what we shall be doing is creating in Wales, in an Assembly, a body of people who will have a vested interest in ridding themselves of the local bodies underneath them.

Mr. Roderick: Such as the county councils.

Mr. Evans: My hon. Friend is mentioning only half of the truth, because it would be the district councils as well. Not only will the county councils go; the district councils will go, too. I shall say why.
The hon. Member for Caernarvon (Mr. Wigley) smiles. He must wipe the smile off his face, because one cannot give to a borough council the powers that are now given to a county council, because a borough council is too small. If we are to create a unitary authority in Wales, either the borough councils will get the power—and they are too small—or the county councils will get it—and they are too large.
The Government are trying to dodge a difficult problem. I understand that they want to rid themselves of it, but it will not go away. It will remain with us. That is why it is imperative that we do not rush through a Bill saying "We made a commitment in the manifesto. Let us tell the people that we have fulfilled it." The people will have to live with the consequences. It is regrettable that we did not do earlier what my right hon. Friend the Member for Anglesey suggested. That opportunity was missed. The Government are now trying to make the best of a bad job.
I am afraid that we cannot leave local government as it is and talk about the unity of the people of this kingdom if we create another tier of government and place it on top of the existing tiers.

Mr. Wigley: The hon. Gentleman has mentioned that the Assembly could well do away with the county function and the district function—if I understood him aright. Surely he is not seriously suggesting that an elected Welsh Assembly


will do away with all other tiers of local government in Wales. If that is what he is suggesting, he is clearly out of touch with the main stream of thinking in Wales in most parties. Those areas that had unitary authorities before now regret that they have lost those unitary tiers and many districts, such as Anglesey and Pembrokeshire, form natural units, and this gave considerable benefits to local government.

Mr. Evans: If the hon. Gentleman does me the justice of reading what I have already said, he will see in Hansard tomorrow that I have answered the points that he is making. I am sure that other hon. Members will have followed my argument.
I was saying that we cannot give the powers to the counties because they are not small enough to be near to the people, and we cannot give the powers to the districts because they will not be large enough. We cannot think in terms of each of 37 borough councils in Wales having a director of education. We shall have a growth of bureaucracy.
The Labour Party has tried to improve the Government's proposals. It has said that we must unify and bring together existing borough councils. The figure varies—15, 17 or 18—and they are only proposals, anyway. The district councils and borough councils will be too small and the counties will be too large.
What disturbs me a little is that in this Chamber we keep talking about bringing local government and government nearer to the people. But what do the local authorities say? Concerning the Assembly, the score was seven against the Assembly and one for it.

Mr. Roderick: That is what the counties say.

Mr. Evans: Seven counties are against the Assembly and one is for it. However, regarding the local government proposals, and this measure, the eight counties, including the county of the hon. Member for Caernarvon, are unanimous in saying that the Bill should not try to make changes. I am sorry that the hon. Member for Merioneth (Mr. Thomas) is not in the Chamber. I have confirmed what I have said with the chief executive of my county, who happens to be the secretary of the eight countries.
How can we say that we are taking government nearer to the people if we bring Gwynedd County Council down to Cardiff for it to be run there, or Powys, Dyfed and the others?

The Under-Secretary of State for Wales (Mr. Alec Jones): My hon. Friend surprises me. I understand the difference of view expressed by various county councils in Wales. However, I find it astonishing that it is said that all the county councils are opposed to the proposals, when I have in front of me a Press report from the Spectator of 4th March which contains this advertisement by the Gwynedd County Council:
Gwynedd County Council wishes the Secretary of State for Wales success in his efforts to establish an elected Assembly for the Principality.

Mr. Evans: The trouble is that hon. Members will not listen to what is said. I mentioned that Gwynedd is the sole exception. It is the only county prepared to spend money on advertising, to tell the Secretary of State what it thinks.
As for Clause 13, which we are not able to discuss, Gwynedd is in line with the other seven counties, and the Welsh counties are unanimous—

Mr. Tam Dalyell: Is it right that public money should be spent by a public authority in sending greetings to the Secretary of State?

Mr. Evans: I shall not follow that up. The counties are doing things now but before long there will not be any counties to do anything, because they will lose their powers completely.
I hope that the amendment will be rejected. I hope also that in some way time may be found to look at Clause 13. Fears are growing in Wales. Uncertainty is developing and it will continue to develop until a final decision has been made. If the clause remains in the Bill, the uncertainty will continue until the Assembly meets and states what is to be the future of local government. It is wrong that those who are working at county and borough level should have these anxieties about their future.

Sir Raymond Gower: I sometimes disagree violently with the hon. Member for Aberdare (Mr. Evans) but I cannot dissent from a lot of what he has said


today, except to point out that when the last Conservative Government enacted the changes in local government they were sustained by some very formidable advice from very large commissions in England and Wales and Scotland. I refer, of course, to the Redcliffe-Maud Report and the Wheatley Report. It was praiseworthy that the Government got down to the task of implementing the sort of findings which are sometimes left on the shelf for a very long time.
The hon. Member for Caernarvon (Mr. Wigley) wants powers to pass to the Assembly, and he remarked that as a result the Assembly will be nearer to the people. I do not follow his argument there, because I believe that the Assembly will be far less near the people than are the local authorities. The Assemblymen will be representing much bigger areas than are represented by members of the county or borough authorities.

Mr. Wigley: Perhaps my comments did not come over clearly to the hon. Gentleman. The powers in the Local Government Act 1972, Sections 53, 54 and 55, are those which will be exercised by the Secretary of State, unless the amendment is carried. The choice, therefore, is between the Secretary of State and Assemblymen. My point is that 75 or 80 Assemblymen must have a greater local knowledge than one person, namely, the Secretary of State.

Sir R. Gower: I should have thought that Assemblymen, recently returned or arrived, and embarking on the great undertaking of the Assembly, would have comparatively little to do. It has been said that they will not have enough powers and functions, but I believe that the Assembly should be the last body in the world to examine local government. It is absurd to give the Assembly a power which is specially prescribed in a special clause. The Assembly, presumably, will want to prove that it is doing something, and therefore, by the very nature of things, it will want to achieve one success—to make far-reaching proposals to alter local government. There would be a far more dispassionate examination of matters of this kind by the Secretary of State. He is far more likely to be objective in his examination than the Assemblymen would be.

Mr. Emlyn Hooson: Does not the hon. Gentleman recollect that the Conservative Government refused to have a commission on Wales? There was no commission on Wales for local government purposes. There was for England and Scotland but not for Wales.

5.15 p.m.

Sir R. Gower: There was a joint commission which reported on local government in England and Wales. The hon. and learned Gentleman knows that perfectly well. He is just playing with words. I suggest that there was no finding in the Redcliffe-Maud Report about Wales. I am sure that persons engaged in local government in Wales would undoubtedly regret anything which tended to separate them from local government in England. I have spoken to many people who worked in local government, and they are able to move from an authority in Wales to one in England and to get experience of a different kind. They are then able to move back again, if they wish to do so, but they cannot do this in the case of Scotland. They like this interchangeability and the career structure which is made possible for them.

Mr. Roderick: The hon. Gentleman said that the Redcliffe-Maud Commission pronounced for England and Wales. At what points did the reorganisation coincide with the recommendations of Redcliffe-Maud for Wales?

Sir R. Gower: I do not think that it would be in order for me to attempt to deal with that question, or even possible in a speech of the length that I propose to make. The ultimate proposals were not greatly dissimilar from the proposals made by the successor of the right hon. Member for Anglesey (Mr. Hughes).

Mr. Roy Hughes: Is it not the fact that we had a White Paper drawn up for Welsh local government reorganisation when my right hon. Friend the Member for Anglesey (Mr. Hughes) was Secretary of State for Wales? Its implementation was held up by the new Secretary of State, following my right hon. Friend's change of office. Our proposals was held up because of the Redcliffe-Maud Commission investigating local government in England. The hon. and learned Member for Montgomery (Mr. Hooson)


is absolutely right in saying that the Commission did not examine Wales.

Sir R. Gower: I recall that the proposals brought forward by the successor to the right hon. Member for Anglesey were slightly different from our proposals, but in essence they were similar.
I give one example of a change which was made. Instead of having a single county in North Wales, it was decided to have two separate counties. Similarly, instead of having a unitary authority in the county of Glamorgan, there was a dual arrangement.

Mr. Gwynfor Evans: Will the hon. Gentleman agree that the fact that the proposals for the reorganisation of local government in Wales were brought forward long before the Redcliffe-Maud Commission reported is of great significance? They were brought forward without the help of a public commission or a public inquiry of any kind. They were, in fact, the fruit of the work of civil servants. It was a Civil Service job, done here in London. That is the big difference between what is now proposed and what happened then.
The people who will be elected to the Assembly will be sensitive to public opinion. They will not act foolishly, otherwise they will be thrown out on their necks. Surely it is very sensible to allow elected people to be responsible for an inquiry of this kind.

Sir R. Gower: I think that the hon. Gentleman was in the House at the time and will recall what happened. I was not a member of the Committee dealing with local government reform, but there was cross-voting and the proceedings were not at all of a partisan nature. At the time I was sitting in Committee on another Bill, connected with housing, and we used to contrast our Bill, where the proceedings were quite partisan, with the other one.
The clause by which the new Assembly will be required, as one of its first duties to examine local government is, I believe most unwise. I do not believe that a power of that sort should be given to the Assembly in its early days. Similarly, with regard to the powers which the amendment seeks to transfer, I agree with the hon. Member for Aberdare that these are better exercised by the Secretary of

State. I do not suggest, as the hon. Member for Aberdare did, that the Assembly will be a non-effective body. However, in its early days it will have to move slowly and, in my view, it should not be required to do something of a very big order such as the re-examination of local government.
That is my attitude, and I agree with the hon. Member for Aberdare that the amendment should not be accepted.

Mr. Cledwyn Hughes: I am glad that the Committee is having this debate and that you, Mr. Murton, have been wise enough to allow the debate to go a little beyond the rigid confines of Amendments Nos. 52 and 53. That is appropriate in view of the possibility that we may not be able to look at Clause 13 in detail, although I do not take the enthusiastic view of a wide ranging debate on Clause 13 of some of my hon. Friends.
It is important for the Committee to remember that, following the 1973 legislation which changed drastically not only the boundaries of local government but also aspects of the National Health Service and of our water undertakings, we suffered traumatic consequences. I do not think that it is exaggerating to say that in all these matters of health, water supply and local government reorganisation we have not yet recovered from the shock that we suffered on their implementation in 1974. The boundaries of local government were changed and functions were transferred to much larger authorities, and there is no doubt that the change took away much of the democratic proximity which existed as between councillor and ratepayer under the old system, and replaced it with the very large counties which now govern Wales.

Mr. Grist: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Cledwyn Hughes: I hope that the hon. Member will allow me to continue my theme. This constant interruption does not help the debate.
I concede immediately that there are strong arguments on both sides of this case. But the major obstacle to reorganising local government in Wales effectively is due largely to the comparative poverty of Mid-Wales, by which I mean the area south of Llanfyllin


virtually to Merthyr Tydfil. Whichever way it is looked at and whatever permutation is considered, we are left with that intractable problem. We have the wealth of Gwent, Glamorgan, Deeside and the Wrexham area and other pockets alongside the comparative poverty of the remaining areas which have extraordinarily difficult problems, especially in the county represented by the hon. and learned Member for Montgomery (Mr. Hooson) and my hon. Friend the Member for Brecon and Radnor (Mr. Roderick) and other comparable areas in the heartland of Wales. That, therefore, is the basic problem. After very careful consideration over a period of time, this is what impelled me to the conclusion that some national organisation in Wales was necessary to deal with the problem.
Of course, we have our nominated bodies, and a proliferation of those, as we know. I came to the unavoidable conclusion, however, that the only way we could tackle the problems properly, bearing in mind the traditions of our people, was a democratic way, and that is what led me to the inescapable conclusion that it should be done on a national basis.
In addition to local government, we had water reorganisation, with appalling consequences in terms of increased charges, and the reorganisation of the National Health Service, again with some undesirable results. I say to my hon. Friends who are slightly critical of this Bill that, when we were debating the local government Bill, the criticism from the Labour Benches was uniform. There was no argument in its favour.
I shall not weary the Committee by quoting from the relevant speeches made by my hon. Friends, powerful though they were, in their criticism of the Bill. Nor shall I refer to the speeches of the hon. Member for Pembroke (Mr. Edwards), who took an honest stand on behalf of his constituency at the time. However, listening to those speeches it was easy to believe that my hon. Friends could not wait for the moment to abolish the new structure and to replace it with some better alternative. Certainly that was the impression that they left with me.
However, their objection may be not to the reorganisation of local government but to the proposal that the Assembly

should look at it first and make recommendations. I think that those of my hon. Friends who are against this proposal in all honesty must believe in their hearts that local government needs to be looked at again. The subdivision of Glamorgan needs to be examined again. One of the difficulties is that it can be argued, as the seven county councils argue, that it is too soon to look at reorganisation. I understand the argument that they should for the time being be allowed to get on with the job. I understand the attitude of conscientious and hard-working officials who want peace to get on with their work. But there is the equally valid argument that, if they are allowed to go on for a few years, they will become more entrenched and reorganisation will again be that much more difficult.

Mr. Nicholas Edwards: When the right hon. Gentleman says that the reverse argument is equally valid, is he bearing in mind that the Government have not accepted that case for England? In their paper on possible devolution for England, they say clearly and explicitly that the first point of view put forward by the right hon. Member for Anglesey (Mr. Hughes)—that there should not be a further upheaval at this time—is the right point of view. That at least is the view of the right hon. Gentleman's Treasury Bench.

Mr. Hughes: Wales provides enough material for us, without embarking further afield—[Interruption.] Very well. Let us take a look back. Redcliffe-Maud made substantial recommendations, and the Conservative Government turned them upside down. They did not implement them. They put their own ideas into effect. What is more, it is not a satisfactory organisation of local government in England. I am prepared to argue that at length, but this is not the occasion to do so. We have our problems in Wales, and I have not the confidence, which hon. Members representing English constituencies have, to poach on their preserve.
I must answer the argument of my hon. Friend the Member for Aberdare (Mr. Evans) when he dealt at some length with Gwynedd, and I shall set the record straight. Gwynedd County Council has written to me at some length. It takes


the view that, whilst it would be wrong to rush into a further review of local government simply as a result of the establishment of the Assembly, it would be unrealistic to regard the present system or any system of government for that matter, as sacrosanct for all time and immune from any kind of review. The county council would like a review of the structure of local government by some sort of commission with the duty of reporting to the Assembly on the structure of local government, the National Health Service and the water authority in Wales.
It is only right that I convey that view to the Committee. It is not a view that I necessarily share. The last report on local government reform in Wales was produced by an appointed working party. Redcliffe-Maud was a commission. Why should we be so resistant to the idea of a democratically elected body being capable of making recommendations on a matter of this kind?

Mr. Wyn Roberts: I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will put the record straight in respect of the Gwynedd case. If he will turn over the page—

5.30 p.m.

Mr. Hughes: The hon. Gentleman is a friend of mine, but at this stage he does me no justice because is is not allowing me to proceed "over the page". The letter continues:
They, like other Welsh County Councils, feel that it would be entirely wrong for the Assembly itself soon after its formation to review local government. It is questionable whether it would act dispassionately and objectively having regard to the over-emphasis that has been given in the past few years to the concept of an Assembly resembling more a local government body than a national forum exercising powers delegated from Parliament, and it is very possible that the Assembly might be tempted to draw from local government activities and functions which properly belong to local government and are not part of the total central government function. This would facilitate the formation of an emasculated pattern of local government which would be contrary to the best interests of the populations in diverse parts of Wales and contrary to good government in the Principality as a whole.
That is the view which is stated hi the council's letter. But as I understand it, the Government do not propose that the functions of county councils, or district councils for that matter, should be transferred to the Assembly. It has always been made clear in all the White

Papers that the powers of the Assembly would be those exercised by the Secretary of State and nominated bodies, not by local government. That is where I must disagree with my hon. Friend the Member for Aberdare.

Mr. Ioan Evans: I have not been in contact with Gwynedd myself, but the letter confirms the opinion that I have received from the England and Wales County Councils Committee which said that it was opposed to Clause 13. I sought confirmation of this because there has been previous misunderstanding between the Welsh counties and the England and Wales counties. I understand that the position of the Welsh counties, as well as that of Gwynedd, is unique in that they support the Assembly legislation, unlike the other counties. But they were unanimous with regard to local committee organisation. I hope my right hon. Friend will agree that that in no way detracts from what I said earlier.

Mr. Hughes: I made clear that I did not agree with everything stated by the Gwynedd County Council. But I felt it right to read out its views. That I have done. However, it certainly does not conform to the impression that my hon. Friend gave in his speech.
There is a final point that I wish to make. I can see that there is a long, hard road ahead before an Assembly comes into being. The opposition to it in some quarters is profound. But those of us who believe in the Assembly will fight for it as strenuously as those who oppose it. Having said that, it is necessary to emphasise that the Assembly will make recommendations to this House of Commons. It can do no more than that. That cannot be repeated too frequently. It is not what Plaid Cymru would favour. It is for the Government of the day of whatever complexion, to decide whether to proceed further with such recommendations. They might decide to do nothing. We might even have a Conservative Government—

Mr. Kinnock: No.

Mr. Hughes: It is a remote possibility. And one does not know what a Conservative Government would do. We are contemplating a very long process. We are talking about the setting


up of the Assembly, the consideration of the problem by the Assembly, the report of the Assembly to the Secretary of State, the consideration of that report by Cabinet and Cabinet Committee, the White Paper which would be debated by the House of Commons and possible legislation to follow. That is a considerable—

Mr. Donald Anderson: Does my right hon. Friend concede that whichever body makes the recommendations, those recommendations will eventually come back to this House of Commons? Should not a non-interested body—a detached body—make such recommendations rather than a body that is interested in aggrandisement or has a vested interest in the decision?

Mr. Hughes: My hon. Friend has unwittingly advanced the classical case for "nominated bodies" as against "democratic bodies". I do not happen to share the view, which some of my hon. Friends harbour in the recesses of their hearts, that Wales is incapable of electing a national body of which it would be proud.

Mr. Kinnock: I am sorry to interrupt my right hon. Friend. I shall ask a brief question to which he can give a brief answer. Will my right hon. Friend name which of my hon. Friends he has in mind when he states that people do not have confidence that Wales is capable of electing whatever it wants to elect

Mr. Hughes: Wales elects Members of Parliament who are honourable and elects to local authorities men who give good service. There are, of course, one or two black sheep in every walk of life in every country. There is in spirit and tradition no more democratic country in the world than Wales. Wales is capable of electing a national body to serve it. I do not think that my hon. Friend should ask me to name hon. Members. It is not a fair question. I believe that my hon. Friend is trying to make an unfair debating point.

Mr. Kinnock: No.

Mr. Hughes: My hon. Friend knows perfectly well that speeches have been made by hon. Members indicating that

they have no confidence that Wales is capable of electing an efficient body to run certain of its own affairs. My hon. Friend, is perfectly at liberty to ask such questions.
I am saying that this House of Commons will in due course have its opportunity to reach a decision on local government after the Assembly comes into being. It will be a long process, but the safeguards that are necessary do exist. In my estimation—I am open to correction—it would take at least four years before we could hope for legislation. That is not unreasonable in the light of the view which Welsh people at present take of their local government.

Mr. Hooson: The right hon. Member for Anglesey (Mr. Hughes) has made a very sensible contribution to the debate. The more I listen to the debate the more I think that it is a tragedy that the previous Government implemented their plans for local government reform without waiting for the Kilbrandon Commission to report. In acting in this way they put Wales in an impossible position. When local government is reformed new bodies are created with vested interests.
Some Labour Members have said that we cannot touch local government now. They claim that because the Conservatives succeeded in placing an impediment in the way of the Welsh Assembly by creating rival interests, we must abide by that situation.

Mr. Ioan Evans: The hon. and learned Member did not hear my speech.

Mr. Hooson: I came in about halfway through the hon. Member's speech and I must say that I am grateful that I missed the first part.
There is a real problem involved, but we must accept that when new local government bodies are created they will have vested interests. We see the county councils reacting more violently against the proposed Assembly than the district councils. That is because they feel more threatened. Most speeches attacking local government in Wales have attacked the county councils rather than the district councils, and, as a result, the counties feel that they are more likely to be changed or reformed by the Welsh Assembly.

Mr. Ioan Evans: Although there has been a certain amount of pitting the district and county councils against each other, if this arises as a result of the Welsh Assembly being set up in years to come, the whole of local government is back in the melting pot. That is what will happen if this Bill goes through.

Mr. Hooson: I do not accept that. I share the view of the right hon. Member for Anglesey. I think that it is taking an impossibly pessimistic view to suggest that the people of Wales cannot elect their own Assemblymen and women who are capable of doing a first-class job. I agree that there is prejudice to overcome and I have never made any bones about that. The hon. Member for Pontypool (Mr. Abse) has put forward the view on several occasions that there is a danger of corruption in the Assembly. I am sure that this problem could be overcome without any trouble at all.
As a Liberal I believe, and I know that my hon. Friend the Member for Cardigan (Mr. Howells) shares my view, that no power should go to the Assembly from local government. All powers should derive from the Secretary of State and this House. The Assembly should not take any powers from either the district or the county councils. Therefore it is quite a wrong concept of the Assembly to suggest that it can or will take powers away from local government.

Mr. Anderson: If that is so, where are those powers that are exercised by the middle tier—the county councils—such as education and social services to go, other than upwards to an Assembly?

Mr. Hooson: The hon. Member assumes that there will be a great change in local government. Whatever views I held six years ago on the proposed local government reform, I feel that it is unlikely to be changed again in the near future. There will be some small changes. For example, at present planning powers are exercised by both the district and county councils. These should be exercised by only one area of local government, and I think it should be the district councils.
Also, I believe that when Labour Members talk about county and district councils they should remember that if local

government in Wales is changed eventually they must not make the mistake of believing that unitary authorities should necessarily be the answer in every part of the country. In rural Wales an all-purpose or most-purpose authority should be the existing district council, which used to be the county council. In Glamorgan and Gwent the position could be quite different. We make the mistake of believing that it must be the district or the county council, but that depends very much on the area and the circumstances.
The right hon. Member for Anglesey mentioned the particular difficulties of what he called the Welsh heartland. These sorts of difficulties occur where there is sparse population. In my constituency we have one soul to every 11 acres and the position is about the same in Brecon and Radnor, Cardigan and Carmarthen where, by and large, the rateable product is very low.
However, if the boundaries were changed, the financing of local government in these areas would be the same. I disagree with the suggestion that it is a question of adjusting the boundaries to deal with mid-Wales where rateable value is low. Whatever changes take place, unless there is a dramatic change in the economy of the area, it will still be heavily dependent on central Government funds for financing. The only question is, who should administer these funds—and that is what the debate is all about. I was all for having unitary authorities in these areas, and I rarely meet anyone in local government who does not agree with me.
What we are concerned with in Clause 13 is that the Assembly should review the structure of local government in Wales and report to the Secretary of State. It would be most valuable to have an elected Welsh Assembly to report its own views on local government structure in Wales. This would be the first time that an elected Welsh body had been in such a position, because it is the first time that we have had an opportunity to have such a body. I cannot understand why hon. Members should object to that provision.

5.45 p.m.

Mr. Geraint Morgan: I listened carefully and with interest to the speech of the right hon. Member for


Anglesey (Mr. Hughes) who played such an important part in the consideration of local government reorganisation in Wales in the 1960s. I gather from what he said that he envisaged certain changes taking place again in Welsh local government within the next four years. The hon. and learned Member for Montgomery (Mr. Hooson) said the opposite—that it was unlikely to be changed in the near future. However, he welcomed the thought that the Welsh Assembly should make recommendations in that respect.
This is the position quite simply, as I see it. Although the terms of Clause 1 as drafted do not make further reorganisation of local government in Wales inevitable, the wording of the clause does appear to extend an open invitation to the Assembly to initiate such a reorganisation, and that only four years after the already extensive reorganisation of 1974 with all the upheaval that that involved. This is what is causing concern at the moment.
For this very good reason the Welsh Counties Committee of the Association of County Councils takes objection to this clause. The point it makes trenchantly in letters and memoranda to Welsh Members is that local government in Wales, and England as well for that matter, needs a period of stability following the last reorganisation, and that it is much to soon to contemplate further changes. It emphasises in this connection that any proposals for change would be bitterly controversial, would undermine the morale of local government and would involve considerable costs at a time of great financial stringency for local government generally.
The matter is succinctly put in a discussion paper recently produced by the Welsh Counties Committee. One passage in that paper reads:
Local government should be allowed to get on with its job. An efficient organisation cannot possibly waste so much time and money in repeatedly considering reorganisation. For 30 years, more or less the entire post-war period, there has been talk of local government reorganisation.
The Welsh Counties Committee could properly have added that Wales suffered more than any other part of the United Kingdom from the unsettling uncertainty of the seemingly endless talk about local government reorganisation during the period after the war, and in particular

from the early 1960s onwards. It is now generally forgotten that Wales was the "guinea pig area" on which the Local Government Commissioners, appointed under the provisions of the local government Act 1958, first got to work. I was surprised to see some vagueness, even among Welsh Members, about what happened during the 1960s. Perhaps I might remind the Committee of what happened.
It is now generally forgotten—certainly forgotten other than in Wales—that the Welsh Local Government Commission commenced its labours as early as 1960. That was well nigh a decade before Redcliffe-Maud was ever heard of. It is also forgotten by many that Welsh public life was bedevilled for years by the proposals and counter-proposals that appeared from time to time in the form of various reports from the Commission and White Papers from the Government.
Those proposals suggested widely differing solutions. Indeed, the zig-zagging between the Commission's initial proposals in 1961 and those which it subsequently came up with in 1963 after the initial ones had been ill-received was quite bewildering.
With the benefit of hindsight, it may fairly be said that the first or "provisional" proposals, as they were euphemistically called, probably more correctly reflected the spirit and purpose of the 1958 Act than any later ones, including those that were ultimately adopted. The fact that they were ill-received was probably due to their novelty more than anything else. Some of the later ones, notably the 1963 proposals which would have involved the tearing apart of historic counties rather than joining them together as entities, which, broadly speaking, was the system ultimately adopted only served to fuel the general discontent with the whole subject of reorganisation.

Mr. Gwynfor Evans: The hon. Gentleman has given us a little background, but I should like him to go back a little further. Discussions were held on local government reorganisation in Wales in the middle 1940s. They had much in common with the proposals put forward in the 1960s, but the proposals in the 1940s were turned down by Aneurin Bevan.

Mr. Morgan: I am grateful to the hon. Member for that addition to my little


excursions into history. I am quoting this sorry story—and I am content to settle for 1960 as a starting date—in order to underline the fact that we must at all costs avoid a repetition of such a costly, time-wasting and, worst of all, morale-destroying exercise in Wales.

Mr. Roy Hughes: It appears to me that the hon. Member for Carmarthen (Mr. Evans) and his hon. Friends the Members for Caernarvon (Mr. Wigley) and Merioneth (Mr. Thomas) require the Assembly to run before it can walk.
I wish to oppose Government Amendment No. 53 because I do not believe the Assembly should decide on the boundaries in the first instance. Parliament should decide that matter. At this stage in the history of the proposed Assembly we should be content to provide that it will merely recommend.
I believe that the Bill is about right in regard to this proposal. The people who are likely to be elected to the Assembly and who live in these areas will be well acquainted with the local situation. Many of them will have vast experience of local government. It is people of that sort, who possess talents in local government, who are likely to stand for the Assembly.
Before I became a Member, I served on one of the largest local authorities in the country, Coventry City Council, an all-purpose authority. Therefore, I can claim not to be unacquainted with these problems. I agree with the hon. Member for Caernarvon that there is likely to be a good deal of duplication, particularly in planning terms. Such people probably could undertake a far better job in helping to rejuvenate manufacturing industry.
My hon. Friend the Member for Aberdare (Mr. Evans) was concerned that the White Paper did not affect local government reorganisation. I wanted local government reorganisation to be included in the proposals, and indeed I have pressed for this all along. Therefore, I am glad that the Bill provides that one of the first jobs to be undertaken by the Assembly is to draw up proposals for a more sensible reorganisation of local government.
I regret that some Members, even Labour Members, are now becoming

rather partial to the 1972 Act. I have always regarded that Act as a disaster for Wales. One receives almost every day circulars and letters from county councils which have a vested interest on such a scale that those interests almost jump out of the envelopes containing them.
I give all credit to many Conservative Members that they now oppose the local government reorganisation that was carried out by the Conservative Government a few years ago. I reiterate that local government is very much a key feature in the Assembly proposals and the Bill in general.
I very much regret that we are not to have a full-scale debate on Clause 13. Perhaps in that event there would have been a possibility of my amendment for a one-tier system of local government for Wales being called.
The Conservative Party has talked a great deal about consultation on the Assembly proposals. However, consultation to meet the wishes of local people in Wales on the 1972 local government legislation left a bitter taste. My hon. Friend the Member for Aberdare suggested that the 1972 legislation rendered abortive any proposals for a Welsh Assembly. My hon. Friend the Member for Aberdare was not a Member in 1972. I remind him that our conclusions were reached after the enactment of the Local Government Bill 1972, when the authorities started to implement it. It is because we reached our decisions after that measure was enacted that the suggestion went in our election programmes for both the 1974 General Elections that we should have a Welsh Assembly.

6.0 p.m.

Mr. Ioan Evans: We were talking about an elected council for Wales in the February election. My hon. Friend talks about the recommendations put forward by the party. At the time we were talking about a top tier local government system for Wales. That is why I believe that local government reorganisation is very much bound up with the whole issue of what sort of council or Assembly we should have.

Mr. Hughes: It is a rose by any other name. If we want to call it a council or an Assembly, I agree with my hon. Friend—

Mr. Anderson: Or a Parliament.

Mr. Hughes: In any event, I am sure that we can agree. If amendments are tabled, we can consider the question of the title.
My hon. Friend the Member for Aberdare has access, as secretary of the Welsh Labour Group, to all the decisions that were made. He knows at first hand that we met often to consider the proposals. The conclusions that were eventually arrived at were not, to say the least, based only on the idea of the Assembly being the top tier of local government.
My personal experience in Newport of the way in which my constituency has been affected by local government reorganisation is that it has been a tragedy. Newport is a town that is well able to stand on its own feet as a local government unit.
I notice that the Department of the Environment is suggesting that the norm for an education authority is a population of 200,000. That is a lot of nonsense. Newport is a county borough of approximately 120,000 people. We had an education system, including a fully comprehensive system, that was far ahead of the Monmouth County Council's system. I appreciate that the Monmouthshire education authority was essentially a good one.
I give the Committee another example. I remember seeing Lord Eccles, the then Minister for the Arts, when the local government proposals were passing through the House. I was with my hon. Friend the Member for Rhondda (Mr. Jones), who is now the Under-Secretary of State for Wales, and my right hon. Friend the Member for Llanelli (Mr. Davies), who is now the Minister of State, Treasury. We went to see Lord Eccles with the purpose of trying to retain library powers for our respective local authorities. Lord Eccles expressed himself as being favourable to the idea as regards Rhondda and Llanelli, but said that Newport was an entirely different matter. He said "We want your library for the county". That is an indication that the services provided in Newport as a single tier authority were first class in character and that they were required, according to the Conservative Government, for the county council.

Mr. Geraint Howells: I know that, like myself, the hon. Gentleman is a staunch devolutionist. If we are to devolve power to the people of Wales, does he agree that we should give more authority to the community councils, which understand the local problems?

Mr. Hughes: The hon. Gentleman's experience in these matters is different from mine. I have said repeatedly that we in Newport do not want community councils. One sensible argument that some of my hon. Friends have advanced in opposition to the Bill is that we are creating too many tiers of government. I entirely agree with that argument. The point that I have tried to make all along is that we should have one tier of local government plus a Welsh Assembly.
I hope that the proposals contained in the Bill will go ahead and that the final say on the whole matter will lie with the House of Commons.

Mr. Grist: The hon. Member for Newport (Mr. Hughes) spoke, as many others have done, as though the arrangements for local government had been fine. The hon. Gentleman cited Newport as an example. I remember that Newport ran out of space, and, having absorbed the Bettws housing estate, it went on to build in the county of Monmouth.
The Minister of State, who moved the amendment that most of us are now discussing, had experience of local government as a councillor at Merthyr Tydfil, the smallest county borough in the whole of the kingdom. That is a prime example of why it would be idiotic to return to where we were. Those who continue to blather on about how marvellous the system was are misleading the public. Some of us are inclined to forget the difficulties that local government suffered in those days. The hon. Member for Carmarthen (Mr. Evans) was right, as was the hon. and learned Member for Denbigh (Mr. Morgan), in saying that Wales was a guinea pig area. As the hon. Member for Carmarthen said, we had local government reports in 1947, 1948 and 1949, all of which recommended between seven and eight counties in Wales instead of the former 13. All those reports were dismissed by Aneurin Bevan.
These reports were followed by the 1958 review, with the temporary or preliminary report in 1961. The final report


appeared in 1963. The trouble with that report was that it dealt with boundaries and not functions, which is what Amendment No. 53 does.
The right hon. Member for Anglesey (Mr. Hughes) went on about making more democratic decisions. The right hon. Gentleman suggested that the Assembly would be more democratic. How true is that? The advice that the Assembly would receive and the plans that would be drawn up would stem from the same civil servants who are now in the Welsh Office. Presumably they would be transferred to the employ of the Assembly. They would produce exactly the same advice to the Assembly as they now present to the Welsh Office. The uproar following any recommendations for change would, indeed, be democratic; we all know that. However, I consider that the greater distance that this place provides means that the decisions that are taken are more objective and less liable to local political pressure.
Some hon. Members talk about dissatisfaction with local government. Surely a great deal of that dissatisfaction came about because reorganisation coincided with the enormous burst of inflation following 1974. If we were to consider the rise in the charges of local government from 1970 until today, we should see a more or less constant graph. It would, unfortunately, be rising sharply, but that merely reflects the way in which inflation itself has risen.
The hon. Member for Caernarvon (Mr. Wigley) said that planning is one of the areas in which there is the most friction. I have not noticed that it is a problem in my county. Both the districts and the county have said that they have now worked out a satisfactory understanding on planning. However, if we were to have more unitary authorities and smaller authorities under the Assembly, what would happen to strategic planning? Presumably that is one of the items that moves upwards to the Assembly. The smaller unitary authorities would not be able to carry out strategic planning. It would be an obvious power to pass to the higher authority.

Mr. Wigley: The counties now draw up their own county structure plans, which are passed to the Secretary of

State for ratification. The Secretary of State can reject certain suggestions that are made in the plans. There is already an all-Wales level of co-ordinating and changing structure plans. The problem is that that process takes place at a bureaucratic level and not at a democratically answerable level.

Mr. Grist: For a start, the Secretary of State is democratically elected. Apart from that, if we are to have 20 or 25 unitary authorities, the likelihood is that the expertise and agreement in respect of the various strategic plans appearing before the Assembly would be much less than if they came from the relatively few counties that now submit their plans to the Welsh Office. Clearly, there would be a greater chance of the Assembly stamping on or altering the structure plans coming from the new unitary authorities than under the present system.
Some Labour Members say that there is great dissatisfaction with local government and go on to blame those on the Conservative Benches for that state of affairs. I can only say that it is extraordinary how many Conservative councillors have been elected in Wales, despite the change in local government. The argument of some Labour Members is not borne out in the various elections.
The hon. Members for Caernarvon and Newport spoke as people who have served on county boroughs. In both instances the boroughs were inadequate. Both of them were far too small. I represent a seat that is part of a county borough, the major county borough in Wales. We still hear moans about old powers and the old position, although part of my division consists of housing estates built outside the old Cardiff city boundaries in the county of Glamorgan. That was because Cardiff had run out of space as well. The complaints come from those who essentially live under a single tier of government. The overwhelming majority of people in Wales have lived under a twotier system all their lives. They are used to it. They see it as logical in a country of large spaces and small population. That is a natural way of exercising local government in Wales and it is not a source of conflict.

Mr. Tom Ellis: When I last spoke in Committee I went on for rather a long time. I assure you, Sir


Myer, that I shall be relatively brief. As a matter of fact, I had not intended to say anything at all. I was on the verge of leaving the Chamber. I was so impressed by the low level of debate that I thought I should emulate my hon. Friend the Member for Bedwellty (Mr. Kinnock) and walk out, but I should not have done it as brazenly as he did.
However, I stayed, and I am glad that I stayed because I had the privilege of listening to the speech made by my right hon. Friend the Member for Anglesey (Mr. Hughes). I thought that he lifted the debate from its previous low level to something approaching the level at which this important subject should be discussed. Up to that point, it had really consisted of emotional prejudices, non-sequiturs and so on. But my right hon. Friend began to deal with what is a difficult and serious problem. It is the problem essentially of coping with the demands of mass democracy.
My right hon. Friend referred to what the Assembly ought to do and wondered whether various functions should or should not be within its power. With the kind permission of the Chair, we considered the extent to which the Assembly should deal with local government reorganisation.
I had intended merely to pay a sincere compliment to my right hon. Friend. However, as I am on my feet, I should like to refer to the argument—the alleged argument—that the Assembly should not deal with these matters because it would be too concerned with its own self-aggrandisement. The argument was that it would be so passionately keen to blow itself up into some kind of glorified, bloated balloon that it was not the body to consider these matters. I find that argument, if not arrogant, certainly sickeningly patronising.

Mr. Anderson: Mr. Anderson rose—

Mr. Ellis: Last time I spoke, I went on and on because I was tempted to give way.

The First Deputy Chairman (Sir Myer Galpern): I hope that the hon. Member is not going to burst the balloon. That is all I am concerned about.

Mr. Ellis: I shall not be tempted into giving way, because I wish to be brief.
This argument is not very relevant. We are all elected Members and we would not necessarily claim that we were any better or worse than the elected Members of any Assembly in Scotland, Wales or any of the regions of England.
This is a crucial matter. It depends on a fundamental point—the unique response of the elected Member to the electorate. That is the basic way in which we try to organise our democracy. That is the key point about having decisions made by elected Members. I should like to illustrate what I mean.

Mr. Dalyell: Will my hon. Friend give way?

Mr. Ellis: No, I shall not give way, because I wish to be brief. I want to illustrate the situation into which we get when we rely unduly on the experts. I am a little sceptical about the experts. An "ex" is a has-been and a "spurt" is a concentrated drip. Who wants a has-been and a concentrated drip making decisions?
The Health Service is a typical example. It is in many ways throughout the whole of Britain in an unsatisfactory state. The reason why the Health Service is not in as happy a position as it should be is that the dominant managerial voice within it is that of the expertise which is supposed to serve the NHS. That has come about because of the lack of an elected representative of the public at large having some influence. The Health Service presumbaly exists to serve the public—the patients. However, it could be argued that it exists to serve the expertise of the medical profession. The reason is that there is no dominant voice from the public within the Health Service.
When the Health Service had a tripartite structure, one facet of the three parts where there was some kind of consumer insistence was the local authority part. If a patient wanted an ambulance, he was able to get one fairly quickly, but if he wanted an operation he might have to wait several months.
I suggest that completely demolishes the argument by one or two of my hon. Friends about the elected Assembly not being competent to consider the important question of the reorganisation of local government.

6.15 p.m.

Mr. Wyn Roberts: This series of amendments has become more extensive in debate than appeared at first sight. That was largely due to the generosity of the Chair and the strong desire of hon. Members to debate local government. But the Committee should not try to escape from the fact that this two-hour debate is no substitute for debates on the 26 pages of the Bill which are being ignored because of the guillotine.
I turn now to the amendments. Amendment No. 52, on the face of it, appears only to improve the layout of the column, but in fact it does rather more. It gives responsibility for the whole of Section 55 of the Local Government Act 1972, rather than subsection (4) only, to the Assembly. Section 55 deals with the duty of the Welsh Commission to review local government areas in Wales and the areas of new towns.
The whole of Section 74, as opposed to subsections (3) and (5) only, is also given to the Assembly. That deals with name changes of counties and districts. Perhaps here we have a hint of what is to come in future.

Mr. John Smith: In fact, it makes no difference, because what is involved in this Act is within the ambit of what is devolved. It is a matter of style to put in the whole section rather than to limit it to particular subsections. I assure the hon. Gentleman that it does not widen the scope for devolution.

Mr. Roberts: Nevertheless, the Government have seen fit to amend it. I do not think that the Minister will deny that the amendments have the effect that I have described.
The significance of this series of amendments is that it has opened up for debate the whole subject of the transfer to the Assembly of responsibility for vast tracts of the Local Government Act 1972 since it refers to Parts V to IX and Parts XI and XII of the Act. Those parts contain 190 clauses and 17 schedules. Therefore, it is the greater part of the Local Government Act 1972.
I remind hon. Members who may not have a copy of the Act to hand that Part V describes general provisions as to members and proceedings of local authorities.
Part VI covers the discharge of functions, including the appointment of committees, standing orders and so on.
Part VII deals with the miscellaneous powers of local authorities—the appointment of staff, land transactions, premises and contracts.
Part VIII is headed "Finance" and covers all expenses and receipts, rates and allowances to members.
Part IX, entitled "Functions", covers all aspects of the environment—public health, water and sewerage, town and country planning, national park and countryside functions, together with town development, traffic, transport and highways. The next sub-heading of Part IX is "Education, social and welfare services", which includes housing. The final heading "Miscellaneous functions", covers the police, fire services and a number of other matters. Part XI relates to general provisions—legal proceedings, documents and notices, byelaws and other powers. Part XII deals with the status of authorities, the power to direct inquiries and various consequential matters.
Hardly an aspect of local government in Wales does not fall within the scope of this amendment to the schedule which is related to Clause 10. That clause provides:
The Assembly shall exercise as regards Wales the functions given to Ministers of the Crown by or under the enactments specified in the first column of Schedule 2 to this Act, with the exception of the functions specified in the second column.
The Local Government Act 1972 is one of the major enactments referred to in the schedule and it heralds, in Part I of the schedule, many of the matters that are referred to, in greater detail in the remaining 19 parts of the schedule which we shall not debate at all. I must again express regret that these matters are not the subject of proper debate.

Mr. Wigley: Surely there was a good opportunity to discuss these powers in the clause stand part debate on Clause 10.

Mr. Roberts: I recall that Clause 10 came right at the end of our debate when the proceedings were coming to an end at 11 o'clock.
As the hon. Member for Caernarvon (Mr. Wigley) said, the Plaid Cymru


Amendment No. 53 seeks to place the Local Government Boundary Commission for Wales entirely within the power of the Assembly and to take away the Secretary of State's power to direct the commission to conduct a review of Wales as a whole or in part and to implement its recommendations as he thinks fit. The amendment would also take away Parliament's powers of annulment, under Section 58(4) of the Local Government Act. If the amendment were to be accepted, it is questionable how much need there would be for Clause 13, although that clause is primarily concerned with the structure of local government in Wales rather than with areas.
However, the Assembly could instruct the Commission to review local authority areas and could implement its recommendations independently of any other body. Such an overdose of power might cause indigestion in the Welsh body politic.
Clause 13 is bad enough. Amendment No. 53 is just as bad. Local authorities would be totally at the mercy of the Assembly. I hope that local authorities note my words and the contents of the Plaid Cymru amendment. The hon. Member for Caernarvon at least was clear in implying that the amendment was a paving amendment for Clause 13.
I turn to the Government Amendment No. 54. This adds the powers under Section 119 of the Local Government Act to exclude functions. This is a curious section. It deals with payments due to deceased officers of local authorities, not being a pension, allowance or gratuity. The exclusion of powers under Section 119 suggests a slight distrust on the part of the Government of the Assembly's relationship with the local authorities. There is a faint suggestion of corruptibility, even in death.
Perhaps the exclusion of powers in Section 119 is, indeed, a maudling concession to the hon. Member for Pontypool (Mr. Abse), who expressed the view in the Welsh Grand Committee that the possibilities of corruption were never ending, which led one to suspect that hands might reach into the public purse even from beyond the grave.
Government Amendment No. 55 adds to the Assembly's powers and removes Sections 245 to 247 from among the ex-

eluded functions. These sections relate to the granting of borough and community status, the preservation of powers, privileges and rights of existing cities and boroughs and the transfer of armorial bearings from old to new authorities. We live in stirring times.
On the other hand, Government Amendment No. 56 removes powers from the Assembly and makes Schedule 12 an exclusive preserve of the Secretary of State. Let us examine what the Assembly has lost. It has lost the rule-making powers over the conduct of a poll among local electors after a parish or community meeting. We do not have parishes, so presumably we are now referring to community meetings. Perhaps it is no great loss in itself, but once again it seems to be indicative of a modicum of distrust on the part of the Government towards the Assembly. Yet this is the body that is to be entrusted with the review of local government structure.
There are one or two major points that I wish to make about the Government amendments. The Minister of State at the end of Thursday's debate said:
There are problems at the edges."—[Official Report, 2nd March 1978; Vol. 945, c. 813.]
—of this piece of legislation. The Government have had ample opportunity to consider what functions to devolve to the Assembly and what to exclude. Yet they are still shifting powers from one category to the other—from column 1 to column 2, from the Secretary of State to the Assembly and vice versa.
The more I look at the division of functions, the more I am reminded of the tall, vertically split tree that Peredur, one of the heroes of Welsh mediaeval tales, the "Mabinogion", saw on his way to slay a monster:
From roots to crown one half was aflame and the other green with leaves.
The green-leaved half represented the real world while the half of the tree that was on fire represented the uncertain other world.
This split schedule of powers is much the same. We know how the right-hand column of powers will be exercised, but the left-hand column of powers is riddled with uncertainties. If the Bill goes through, I fear that there will be a fire there before long.
There is deep concern in the county authorities in Wales about the transfer of supervision of these statutory functions to the Assembly. They do not know how it will work out in practice. When the supervision of local authority functions is coupled with the requirement that the Assembly reviews the structure of local government and allocates rate support grant, the concern mounts to alarm of disruptive proportions. What the authorities plead for and need is stability. They want no change and no reorganisation for the time being. Their feelings are exacerbated because they know, we know and the rest of Wales knows that the supervision of the local authorities and their possible reduction in every sense to be the puppets of the Assembly is part of the price that Wales will have to pay for the Assembly itself.
The hon. Member for Aberdare (Mr. Evans) was absolutely right. What began as a move to bring government closer to the people is rapidly becoming a move to take government further away from them.

Mr. Wigley: Does the hon. Member honestly believe that members of a local authority elected in his area—be it an all-purpose authority or one under a new structure—would be puppets? Does he believe that could happen in his own patch? Is that his opinion of his own people?

Mr. Roberts: The hon. Member for Caernarvon represents a Gwynedd constituency. He should read the letter which arrived this morning and which the right hon. Member for Anglesey (Mr. Hughes) read to the Committee. It is fairly clear from the extent of the transfer of functions to the Assembly, particularly the supervisory functions, that the local authorities will become puppets of the Assembly. To me that is taking power away from the people and removing it to another place.

6.30 p.m.

Mr. Roderick: I do not accept Amendment No. 53, which is the Plaid Cymru amendment, in that I would not give the Assembly the final say in deciding on the structure of local government. I would, however, give the Assembly a say. It would be wise for it to have advisory powers in this respect because the Assembly would be much closer to the

views of the people of Wales than would be the House of Commons. There are many right hon. and hon. Members from Wales here, but we do not have the overall say on what is decided in this place. It would therefore be worth giving the Assembly advisory functions.
If the Assembly were given the final say its members would have a vested interest just as the members of county councils in Wales have a vested interest in what they are writing to Members about.

Mr. Anderson: If that is the case, will my hon. Friend explain why it is more logical to give that responsibility to the Assembly than to the group of county councils, since each one has a vested interest?

Mr. Roderick: I was saying that it would be worth allowing the Assembly to have a say, but not the final say, because that would rest here with the Secretary of State and the Government, which is as it should be.
Hon. Members have quoted widely from the letter from the county councils association about what the Welsh counties committee has to say. I have noted an absence of quotations from the district councils. Is that because any reorganisation of local government is seen to be not so much a merger as an abolition of the county councils, with the district councils coming to power?
Frankly, any reorganisation of local government in Wales must be a total abolition of the present local authorities and a restructuring, starting from the beginning. We have as a party put for-forward certain proposals. We think that there ought to be about 20 to two dozen authorities. If someone says that we cannot have that number of directors of education, for example, he overlooks the fact that we used to have 17 directors of education in Wales. So it is not way out to consider having just that few more.

Mr. Wyn Roberts: Is not the hon. Gentleman aware that there are 36 district councils in Wales?

Mr. Roderick: The hon. Member for Conway (Mr. Roberts) has not been listening. We have put forward reorganisation proposals for 20 to 24 local authorities in Wales. The Assembly might think differently, but the final result will be


determined here at Westminster. It would be wise to have about 20 unitary authorities. I do not think we could have all-purpose authorities and still retain the number of 36 or 37, because that would be unrealistic.
Some of my hon. Friends and some Opposition Members managed to get the whole basis of the legislation changed when the Government agreed to drop the Scotland and Wales Bill and instead introduce two separate Bills. Those hon. Members must not be surprised if in the process some of the proposals in the original Bill were also changed. The subject of local government was introduced into this Bill. The Assembly is to review local government—and I stress that the Bill says "review"—but it should not proceed. It is then to advise the Secretary of State. It must report to the Secretary of State, not initiate legislation as some hon. Members have suggested in the debate.
Some hon. Members have suggested that there would be an extra tier of government. May I suggest that the extra tier of local government they are referring to is already there? We are attempting to introduce some democracy into that tier.

Mr. Ioan Evans: We can argue this point time and again in Committee. The House of Commons and the Welsh Office represent a tier of government. There are also the community councils, the district councils and the county councils, and they represent tiers of government, too. By the Bill powers are being taken away from the House of Commons and given to a new body—the Assembly. Surely that Assembly, although it is to take over existing powers, still represents another tier of government. Is my hon. Friend suggesting that the Assembly is not a tier of government?

The First Deputy Chairman: Before the hon. Member for Brecon and Radnor (Mr. Roderick) replies to that point, may I remind him that the Minister has yet to reply to the debate and that the guillotine falls at 7 o'clock?

Mr. Roderick: Thank you, Sir Myer. I shall briefly reply to my hon. Friend the Member for Aberdare (Mr. Evans). The Bill is taking powers not from the House of Commons but from the Secretary

of State. We do not seem to have the opportunities in this Committee to deal with the very powers that we are talking about. We hear little of the views of the district councils. What is so sacrosanct about the county councils that we should listen to them and not to the district councils?
While recently discussing this problem with a number of county councillors I had to remind them that they were as opposed as I was to the 1972 reorganisation. At that time they wanted to retain the old structure. Suddenly they want to retain the present structure. I was appalled to find Labour county councillors—radicals—who were more conservative than the Conservative Party. Now that they have this new structure they do not want any more changes. I believe that they should look at this anew. We want to merge the powers of these authorities into one reorganisation.
I shall bear in mind your stricture, Sir Myer, or perhaps I should call it a kindly reminder, since the Minister wishes to reply to the debate. Let me deal briefly with the question of the referendum.
It has been agreed that a referendum should be held on the Bill to see whether it is acceptable to the people of Wales. It is a pity that the Conservatives who supported the referendum proposals did not listen to the views of the people on local government reform in 1972 when ballots were conducted in certain areas on the question of boundaries. The Conservatives ignored them. Now they agree with the referendum, and that makes me sceptical about their views on the whole issue of the Bill.

Mr. Alec Jones: I am glad to have the opportunity of responding to this debate. At one point I did not think I would be able to do so.
Let me indicate quite clearly at this early stage, in order to put the Committee out of its misery, that the Government cannot accept Amendment No. 5. Even if there were a vote on it, which there will not be, we would recommend that it be opposed. We say that because the determination of local government boundaries is bound up with local government structure and electoral matters, and these are properly reserved to legislation in the House of Commons, Amendment No. 53 has opened the door to a wide-ranging


and interesting debate that I suspect that many hon. Members feared at one time that they were not going to get while others feared that they were.
It is plain that there is a fairly clear difference between the two sides of the Committee. Most Conservative Members who have spoken in the debate certainly gave the impression that they were satisfied with the present set-up of local government in Wales, whereas everyone else who has spoken indicated quite clearly the considerable dissatisfaction that exists in Wales today regarding the structure and set-up of local government.
My hon. Friend the Member for Aberdare (Mr. Evans) said that we cannot leave local government as it is. He said he did not regard the previous Tory local government reorganisation as of the best. If my hon. Friend the Member for Aberdare genuinely believes that the Tory local government reorganisation was not of the best, it is the responsibility of the House of Commons to do something about it and to do it as quickly as possible.

Mr. Anderson: Mr. Anderson rose—

Mr. Jones: No, I shall not give way to my hon. Friend at this time.

Mr. Ioan Evans: Mr. Ioan Evans rose—

Mr. Jones: I am prepared to give way to my hon. Friend.

Mr. Evans: While I do not think that that reorganisation was of the best, the weakness of this Bill is that it is trying to go on dealing with government in Wales, affecting local government also and the existing local government structure. If my hon. Friend says the Tory Party did not do as well, what the Government are now doing here will not deal with the problem.

Mr. Jones: I was trying to indicate that there was clear agreement on this side of the Committee, and acceptance by Conservative Members, that the present structure was not of the best. In my view, it is true to say that whether or not devolution occurred, some government in Wales at some time fairly soon would have to grasp this nettle of local government reorganisation.
I recall that at the time of the passage of the local government reorganisation Bill there was not one county council in Wales which accepted or suggested that the existing structure was attractive to it. I recall how Glamorgan County Council mounted a long campaign, how representatives of the county of Pembrokeshire came to hon. Members to explain how the structure under which they were forced to live was completely unacceptable to them.

Mr. Wyn Roberts: Mr. Wyn Roberts rose—

Mr. Jones: I do not propose to give way at this time.
I recall how district councillors throughout Wales came to us at the time when the Bill was going through with petition after petition showing how the boundaries and functions laid down in the Bill would be positively disastrous for efficient local government. I further recall how trade unions involved in local government, and other interested bodies, clearly spelt out that the local government reorganisation was not acceptable to them.

Mr. Ioan Evans: Mr. Ioan Evans rose—

Mr. Jones: I shall not give way to my hon. Friend. I am trying to deal with the points made in a debate which has gone on for two-and-a-half hours and there are some things which must be said.

Mr. Wyn Roberts: Mr. Wyn Roberts rose—

Mr. Jones: I cannot give way to the hon. Gentleman at this juncture.
I have said that in my view, and in the view of the Government, the present structure of local government in Wales is completely unsatisfactory, and I believe that what was felt strongly at the time of the local government reorganisation is felt today. Hon. Members are constantly reminding me at Question Time and in debates how disastrous it has been. When I travel throughout Wales meeting local authorities I am told of the difficulties they experience. Local authorities in one part of Wales will tell me that the district planning officer is hardly on speaking terms with the county planning officer and yet they are supposed to be dealing with planning as it affects Wales. Certainly the people concerned are in considerable doubt as to who is responsible for the functions and services that they need.
What staggers me is that, while what I would describe as the discontent has been expressed, we have heard expressions of enthusiasm, love and affection for the Welsh Office which I never hear on other occasions. The Welsh Office has never realised that it had so many admirers as we have heard about today.
There is a feeling of discontent and the Government have to consider what should be done about it. One hon. Member has suggested an immediate reorganisation of local government. That would be a form of de-reorganisation which perhaps has some attractions. It is, of course, possible to consider some refinement of the present structure, or even to throw the whole lot overboard.
We have had many suggestions of various kinds, but it seems to me that, in view of the points that have been made today, we ought not to contemplate any action within one or two years of the setting up. But certainly a review could measure the extent of the discontent, and areas of discontent, and it is felt that a review of that kind should be carried out.
We are therefore forced into the position of asking, who should carry out the review? This is where we differ. We could set up a special advisory committee which would be another nominated body, something on which I am never keen, and I do not remember my hon. Friends being keen on it in the past.
It is suggested that we might have a commission. I am not greatly enamoured of commissions, for in the 11 years that I have been a Member it has seemed to me that successive Governments, in setting up commissions, have endowed the members of those commissions with a wisdom which they do not of necessity have and an impartiality which it is impossible for them to have. So I disregard the idea of a nominated special advisory Committee to carry out the investigation.

Mr. Kinnock: Or a Select Committee?

6.45 p.m.

Mr. Jones: I come back to the alternative of leaving it to the civil servants. I assure the hon. Member for Carmarthen (Mr. Evans) that if it were to be done by civil servants they would not be civil servants in the Welsh Office in Gwydyr House. They would be located in

Cardiff. I do not suggest that the hon. Gentleman would want that. When there have been civil servants in the Welsh Office in Gwydyr House in the past they have always been attacked on the ground of being a great bureaucracy.

Mr. Leon Brittan: That is an Aunt Sally.

Mr. Jones: Clearly, the hon. Member for Cleveland and Whitby (Mr. Brittan) is an expert on Aunt Sallies.
The next question is whether the review should be carried out by the Assembly itself. We came to the view that that appeared to be a reasonable body to deal with a review of local government. When the first White Paper and succeeding White Papers were introduced, and when the first Scotland and Wales Bill was introduced my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House clearly indicated that, in response to representations made to them, the Government were prepared to amend their proposals. My hon. Friends will find in the Bill not one but many instances of our having responded to representations made to us. I am glad that we have. I am glad we responded to the recommendations made to us by the teachers.
First, it would be an Assembly consisting of Welsh men and women coming together from all over Wales. It would be an elected body, a democratic body, a body which in the ultimate would have major responsibility for supervising local governments in Wales. It is the body which will have to work more closely with local government in Wales than any other body. It seemed to us, therefore, that this was the right body to carry out the review. We accept that there are criticisms and we believe that the only sensible way of measuring them and finding out the areas to which they are directed is to provide for the review to be carried out by an elected Assembly.
I understand the fears of county and district councils that one group or the other—or both—might be wiped out. The Assembly will conduct the review as honestly as could any other body. It could suggest the scrapping of county or district councils—or both—it could suggest a modification of existing structures, or it could leave matters as they are. Without a review, we should never know what


needs to be done. All the views, including those of county and district councils, can be examined, recommendations can be made to the Government and the House of Commons will have the last say on boundaries. That is why I reject Amendment No. 53.

Mr. Anderson: The Minister has argued powerfully that the Government believe that there is a fundamental flaw in the 1972 Act and have long thought that local government should be reorganised as speedily as possible. But that hardly accords with their unwillingness to suggest that local government should have been reorganised immediately the Government came to office in 1974.
We know why Clause 13 has been put into the Bill at this late stage. At the start, the Government were trying to argue that the Bill would not affect local government. They were wooing local authorities and saying that they would not be affected—just as it was claimed that the House would not be affected.
It was only when the Government were rumbled and people began to see that, through the rate support grant and in a whole series of areas, local government would be fundamentally affected that a strange alchemy began to take effect. The Government changed their tune and thought to themselves that as local government was unpopular—mainly because of the immense inflation and the rate demands of 1974 and 1975—they could use that to their own advantage and say in the referendum that the way to get local government reform was to vote for the Assembly. That is the real reason for the afterthought and the sudden Paul of Tarsus-like conversion on the way to the Assembly.
There probably is a case for local government reorganisation. I can see that there is a need for varied treatment within Wales because of our special features, but if there is that need, which could be met on the lines of the organic change suggested for English authorities, one thing is crystal clear: the Assembly is not the body to do it—any more than would be district or county authorities. Clearly it would have a vested interest and could not take as detached a view as could a local commission. It would be involved in aggrandising their powers and

in seeking a role in education, social services and so on to justify itself.
One cannot conceive of 24 district authorities dealing with structure plans, and the major planning powers will float up to the Assembly which will seek to have as many bodies as possible below it so that it can argue that there cannot be 30 directors of education or 30 directors of social services.
These are properly bodies for the super tier and the House of Commons is the only feasable super tier. The Government's proposal is not the way to reorganise local government. If the case is as formidable as the Government claim, the reorganisation could take place irrespective of whether an Assembly was established.
We know the motive for the change. It is an attempt to sell the Assembly to a sceptical Welsh electorate. For that reason, many of my hon. Friends and I will have no hesitation in voting against it.

Mr. Kinnock: I shall be voting with my hon. Friend the Member for Swansea, East (Mr. Anderson) for similar reasons to those that he has spelt out.
Clause 13 and all that emanates from it, including the considerations in the amendment, are nothing more than a convenient afterthought for those who gave no consideration to this development until they were made aware that a heavy majority of Welsh people were against the devolution proposals.
In order to try to sweeten the pill, the Government have tried to mobilise the justifiable resentments felt against the present structure of local government and offered the prospect of getting rid of that structure through devolution. Even then, the Government could not get it right. Even then, they were not prepared to follow the logic of Plaid Cymru and the Wales TUC who advocate the granting of real power to the Assembly to make conclusive decisions on local government. We have the least competent of formulae for change.
Whether the Assembly has vested interests or not, it will invariably be accused of having them. It is in direct association and close locality with the local authorities that it is to be asked to review. It will not be trusted by the local authorities or by the people.
Rightly or wrongly, the people will see the Assembly, as a body which, in order to justify its forlorn existence, will have to take power from whatever tier of government it can get it. This is the centralisation that the hon. Member for Cardigan (Mr. Howells), with his federal lunacies, and Plaid Cymru, with its decentralist delusions, always criticise when talking about this place. Nothing will insulate the Assembly or the Welsh people from that process. It is normal in the development of politics. Having got this hopelessly incompetent formula, the Government will not go the whole honest hog. They suggest that the review will take a few years. The present structure will become even more entrenched and, therefore, more difficult to change. Submissions will be made to the House and proposals will have to go through precisely the same legislative process as would proposals made by the Government for local government reform now.
The House can reserve for itself the right to throw out the review and confront the opinion of the so-called national voice of Wales—the Assembly—and so inflame the relationship between Wales and the House. That is a formula for absolute disaster and the most catastrophic waste of manpower, resources and time of everyone involved in the Assembly, among the civil servants serving the Assembly, local authorities and the House. And none of it will be free.
If the Government consider that there is a function for devolution in this sort of decentralisation, let them relieve the people of England of this dread local government reorganisation. I voted against the reorganisation and even Conservatives try to disown it now. Let the Government relieve English people of

Amendments made:



No. 54, in page 37, line 16, column 2,
at end insert—



"The powers under section 119.".


No. 55, in page 37, line 30, column 2, leave out from "under" to end of line 31 and insert "section 244".
No. 56, in page 37, line 39, column 2, leave out from "under" to "Schedule" in line 40.


No. 57, in page 37, line 51, column 1,
leave out "32(3)".


No. 58, in page 38, line 18, column 2,
at end insert—



"The powers under section 26(6)(b).".


No. 59, in page 44, line 37, column 2,
at end insert—



'The powers under section 108.'.

their long night of post-reform suffering. Let them also bring this reform to Wales. Let them do it directly or let them give the Assembly or English Assemblies the function. But do not let the English people or the people of Wales be crushed between the idiocy of what they propose now and the reality of politics in Wales.

Sir Anthony Meyer: I have less than a minute to support what the hon. Member for Bedwellty (Mr. Kinnock) has just said.
It strikes me that of all bodies the Assembly is the least apt to conduct this reform. It suffers to an aggravated extent from precisely the trouble from which this Chamber suffers. When it comes to considering detailed proposals for reform, coalitions of interests form to frustrate them. We saw that again and again in the working out of the local government proposals—

It being Seven o'clock, THE CHAIRMAN proceeded, pursuant to the Order [16th November] and the Resolution [1st March], to put forthwith the Question already proposed from the Chair.

Question, That the amendment be made, put and agreed to.

The First Deputy Chairman: It is now my duty under the Allocation of Time Order to put the Question on all Government amendments proposed to Schedule 2. The Government amendments on the Notice Paper are Nos. 54–60, No. 208, No. 209, No. 210, No. 65, No. 212 and No. 213.
I understand that the Government also wish to move Amendment No. 69, in the name of the hon. Member for Carmarthen (Mr. Evans). Is that correct?

Mr. John Smith: Mr. John Smith indicated assent.

No. 60, in page 44, line 37, at end
insert—


"The Adoption Act 1976 (c. 36) sections 3, 4, 5, 8, 9, 28(10) and 57.'.



No. 208, in page 48, line 39, at end
insert—


'The Acquisition of Land (Authorisation Procedure) Act 1946 (c. 49) sections 3 and 5 and paragraphs 10., 11 and 12 of Schedule 1.
The functions under section 3(1) so far as exercisable where the compulsory purchase order is or would be made or confirmed by a Minister of the Crown.



The functions under section 3(4) so far as exercisable where the apparatus belongs to excepted statutory undertakers.



The functions under section 5 so far as their exercise is incidental to functions which remain exercisable by a Minister of the Crown.



The functions under paragraph 10 of Schedule 1 so far as exercisable in relation to excepted statutory undertakers.'.


No. 209, in page 49, line 26, leave out '4'and insert '5'.


No. 210, in page 49, line 46, column 2, at end insert—



'The functions under section 54(4) so far as exercisable by the Treasury or in relation to excepted statutory undertakers.'.


No. 65, in page 52, line 24, after '5(3)', insert 'and (5)'.


No. 69, in page 57, line 13, leave out '1972' and insert '1974'


No. 212, in page 58, leave out lines 14 to 28.


No. 213, in page 58, leave out lines 33 to 49 and insert—


'The Transport Act 1968 (c. 73) Part 11 and sections 56, 57, 135(1)(d) and 158.
The functions under section 20(6).



The powers under section 158 so far as their exercise is incidental to functions which remain exercisable by a Minister of the Crown.'.

THE CHAIRMAN then proceeded to put forthwith the Questions necessary for the disposal of the business to be concluded at Seven o'clock.

Question put, That this Schedule, as amended, be the Second Schedule to the Bill: —

The Committee divided: Ayes 222, Noes 193.

Division No. 135]
AYES
[7.01 p.m.


Allaun, Frank
Campbell, Ian
Dempsey, James


Anderson, Donald
Canavan, Dennis
Doig, Peter


Archer, Rt Hon Peter
Carmichael, Nell
Dormand, J. D.


Armstrong, Ernest
Carter-Jones, Lewis
Douglas-Mann, Bruce


Atkins, Ronald (Preston N)
Castle, Rt Hon Barbara
Dunn, James A.


Atkinson, Norman
Clemitson, Ivor
Dunwoody, Mrs Gwyneth


Bain, Mrs Margaret
Cocks, Rt Hon Michael (Bristol S)
Eadie, Alex


Barnett, Guy (Greenwich)
Cohen, Stanley
Edge, Geoff


Bates, Alf
Coleman, Donald
Ellis, John (Brigg &amp; Scun)


Bean, R. E.
Cook, Robin F. (Edin C)
Ellis, Tom (Wrexham)


Beith, A. J.
Corbett, Robin
English, Michael


Bennett, Andrew (Stockport N)
Cowans, Harry
Ennals, Rt Hon David


Bidwell, Sydney
Crawford, Douglas
Evans, Gwynfor (Carmarthen)


Bishop, Rt Hon Edward
Crawshaw, Richard
Ewing, Harry (Stirling)


Blenkinsop, Arthur
Crowther, Stan (Rotherham)
Faulds, Andrew


Boardman, H.
Cryer, Bob
Fernyhough, Rt Hon E.


Boothroyd, Miss Betty
Cunningham, G. (Islington S)
Flannery, Martin


Bottomley, Rt Hon Arthur
Cunningham, Dr J. (Whiteh)
Fletcher, Ted (Darlington)


Boyden, James (Bish Auck)
Dalyell, Tam
Foot, Rt Hon Michael


Bray, Dr Jeremy
Davidson, Arthur
Ford, Ben


Brown, Hugh D. (Provan)
Davies, Bryan (Enfield N)
Forrester, John


Brown, Robert C. (Newcastle W)
Davies, Ifor (Gower)
Fowler, Gerald (The Wrekin)


Buchan, Norman
Davis, Clinton (Hackney C)
Freud, Clement


Buchanan, Richard
Deakins, Eric
Garrett, W. E. (Wallsend)


Butler, Mrs Joyce (Wood Green)
Dean, Joseph (Leeds West)
George, Bruce


Callaghan, Jim (Middleton &amp; P)
Dell, Rt Hon Edmund
Golding, John




Gould, Bryan
Maclennan, Robert
Silkin, Rt Hon S. C. (Dulwich)


Gourlay, Harry
McMillan, Tom (Glasgow C)
Silverman, Julius


Graham, Ted
Madden, Max
Skinner, Dennis


Grant, George (Morpeth)
Magee, Bryan
Smith, Cyril (Rochdale)


Grant, John (Islington C)
Mahon, Simon
Smith, John (N Lanarkshire)


Grimond, Rt Hon J.
Mallalieu, J. P. W.
Snape, Peter


Grocott, Bruce
Marks, Kenneth
Spearing, Nigel


Hamilton, James (Bothwell)
Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)
Spiggs, Leslie


Hamilton, W. W. (Central Fife)
Maynard, Miss Joan
Stallard, A. W.


Harper, Joseph
Meacher, Michael
Steel, Rt Hon David


Harrison, Rt Hon Walter
Millan, Rt Hon Bruce
Stewart, Rt Hon Donald


Hayman, Mrs Helene
Mitchell, Austin
Stewart, Rt Hon M. (Fulham)


Henderson, Douglas
Molloy, William
Stoddart, David


Hooley, Frank
Moonman, Eric
Stott, Roger


Hooson, Emlyn
Morris, Alfred (Wythenshawe)
Taylor, Mrs Ann (Bolton W)


Horam, John
Morris, Charles R. (Openshaw)
Thomas, Dafydd (Merioneth)


Howells, Geraint (Cardigan)
Morris, Rt Hon J. (Aberavon)
Thomas, Jeffrey (Abertillery)


Hoyle, Doug (Nelson)
Moyle, Roland
Thomas, Ron (Bristol NW)


Huckfield, Les
Mulley, Rt Hon Frederick
Thompson, George


Hughes, Rt Hon C. (Anglesey)
Noble, Mike
Tomlinson, John


Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)
Ogden, Eric
Torney, Tom


Hughes Roy (Newport)
O'Halloran, Michael
Tuck, Raphael


Hunter, Adam
Orbach, Maurice
Wainwright, Edwin (Dearne V)


Jackson, Miss Margaret (Lincoln)
Orme, Rt Hon Stanley
Walker, Harold (Doncaster)


Jay, Rt Hon Douglas
Ovenden, John
Walker, Terry (Kingswood)


Jeger, Mrs Lena
Padley, Walter
Ward, Michael


Jenkins, Hugh (Putney)
Pardoe, John
Walkins, David


John, Brynmor
Park, George
Watt, Hamish


Johnson, James (Hull West)
Parker, John
Wellbeloved, James


Johnston, Russell (Inverness)
Parry, Robert
Welsh, Andrew


Jones, Alec (Rhondda)
Panhaligon, David
White, Frank R. (Bury)


Jones, Barry (East Flint)
Phipps, Dr Colin
White, James (Pollok)


Jones, Dan (Burnley)
Price, William (Rugby)
Whitehead, Phillip


Kaufman, Gerald
Radice, Giles
Wigley, Dafydd


Kerr, Russell
Rees, Rt Hon Merlyn (Leeds S)
Willey, Rt Hon Frederick


Kilroy-Silk, Robert
Reid, George
Williams, Alan Lee (Hornch'ch)


Lambie, David
Roberts, Albert (Normanton)
Wilson, Alexander (Hamilton)


Lamond, James
Roberts, Gwilym (Cannock)
Wilson, Gordon (Dundee E)


Lee, John
Robinson, Geoffrey
Wilson, Rt Hon Sir Harold (Huyton)


Lestor, Miss Joan (Eton &amp; Slough)
Roderick, Caerwyn
Wilson, William (Coventry SE)


Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)
Rodgers, George (Chorley)
Wise, Mrs Audrey


Litterick, Tom
Rodgers, Rt Hon William (Stockton)
Woodall, Alec


Lyons, Edward (Bradford W)
Rooker, J. W.
Woof, Robert


MacCormick, Iain
Roper, John
Wrigglesworth, Ian


McDonald, Dr Oonagh
Ross, Rt Hon W. (Kilmarnock)
Young, David (Bolton E)


McElhone, Frank
Rowlands, Ted



MacFarquhar, Roderick
Sedgemore, Brian
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


McGuire, Michael (Ince)
Shaw, Arnold (Ilford South)
Mr. Thomas Cox and


MacKenzie, Rt Hon Gregor
Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert
Mr. James Tinn.


Mackintosh, John P.






NOES


Aitken, Jonathan
Cooke, Robert (Bristol W)
Hamilton, Michael (Salisbury)


Alison, Michael
Cormack, Patrick
Hampson, Dr Keith


Arnold, Tom
Costain, A. P.
Hannam, John


Atkins. Rt Hon H. (Spelthorne)
Crouch, David
Harrison, Col Sir Harwood (Eye)


Atkinson, David (Bournemouth, East)
Dean, Paul (N Somerset)
Havers, Rt Hon Sir Michael


Awdry, Daniel
Dodsworth, Geoffrey
Hayhoe, Barney


Banks, Robert
Drayson, Burnaby
Heath, Rt Hon Edward


Bell, Ronald
Durant, Tony
Hicks, Robert


Bendall, Vivian (Ilford North)
Eden, Rt Hon Sir John
Hodgson, Robin


Bennett, Sir Frederic (Torbay)
Edwards, Nicholas (Pembroke)
Hordern, Peter


Benyon, W.
Elliott, Sir William
Howell. David (Guildford)


Berry, Hon Anthony
Emery, Peter
Hunt, David (Wirral)


Biffen, John
Eyre, Reginald
Hurd, Douglas


Biggs-Davison, John
Fairbairn, Nicholas
Hutchison, Michael Clark


Body, Richard
Fairgrieve, Russell
Irving, Charles (Cheltenham)


Boscawen, Hon Robert
Finsberg, Geoffrey
James, David


Bottomley, Peter
Fletcher, Alex (Edinburgh N)
Jessel, Toby


Bowden, A. (Brighton, Kemptown)
Fookes, Miss Janet
Johnson Smith, G. (E Grinstead)


Boyson, Dr Rhodes (Brent)
Forman, Nigel
Jones, Arthur (Daventry)


Brittan, Leon
Fowler, Norman (Sutton C'f'd)
Jopling, Michael


Brocklebank-Fowler, C.
Gardner, Edward (S Fylde)
Joseph, Rt Hon Sir Keith


Brooke, Peter
Glyn, Dr Alan
Kaberry, Sir Donald


Bryan, Sir Paul
Goodhart, Philip
Kershaw, Anthony


Buchanan-Smith, Alick
Goodhew, Victor
Kimball, Marcus


Buck, Antony
Gorst, John
King, Evelyn (South Dorset)


Budgen, Nick
Gow, Ian (Eastbourne)
King, Tom (Bridgwater)


Bulmer, Esmond
Gower, Sir Raymond (Barry)
Kitson, Sir Timothy


Burden, F. A.
Gray, Hamish
Knight, Mrs Jill


Carlisle, Mark
Grieve, Percy
Knox, David


Chalker, Mrs Lynda
Griffiths, Eldon
Latham, Michael (Melton)


Clark, William (Croydon S)
Grist, Ian
Lawrence, Ivan


Clarke, Kenneth (Rushcliffe)
Grylls, Michael
Lawson, Nigel


Clegg, Walter
Hall-Davis. A. G. F.
Lester, Jim (Beeston)







Lloyd, Ian
Percival, Ian
Spence, John


Loveridge, John
Pink, R. Bonner
Sproat, Iain


McAdden, Sir Stephen
Powell, Rt Hon J. Enoch
Stainton, Keith


McCrindle, Robert
Prentice, Rt Hon Reg
Stanbrook, Ivor


McCusker, H.
Price, David (Eastleigh)
Stanley, John


Macfarlane, Nell
Prior, Rt Hon James
Steen, Anthony (Wavertree)


MacKay, Andrew (Stechford)
Pym, Rt Hon Francis
Stewart, Ian (Hitchin)


Marshall, Michael (Arundel)
Raison, Timothy
Stradling Thomas, J.


Marten, Nell
Rathbone, Tim
Tapsell, Peter


Maude, Angus
Rawlinson, Rt Hon Sir Peter
Tebbit, Norman


Maudling, Rt Hon Reginald
Rees, Peter (Dover &amp; Deal)
Temple-Morris, Peter


Mawby, Ray
Renton, Rt Hon Sir D. (Hunts)
Thatcher, Rt Hon Margaret


Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin
Renton, Tim (Mid-Sussex)
Thomas, Rt Hon P (Hendon S)


Mayhew, Patrick
Rhodes James, R.
van Straubenzee, W. R.


Meyer, Sir Anthony
Ridley, Hon Nicholas
Viggers, Peter


Miller, Hal (Bromsgrove)
Ridsdale, Julian
Wakeham, John


Mills, Peter
Rifkind, Malcolm
Walder, David (Clitheroe)


Mitchell, David (Basingstoke)
Roberts, Wyn (Conway)
Walker, Rt Hon P (Worcester)


Moate, Roger
Ross, William (Londonderry)
Wall, Patrick


Molyneaux, James
Rossi, Hugh (Hornsey)
Walters, Dennis


Moore, John (Croydon C)
Rost, Peter (SE Derbyshire)
Warren, Kenneth


More, Jasper (Ludlow)
Sainsbury, Tim
Weatherill, Bernard


Morgan, Geraint
St. John-Stevas, Norman
Wells, John


Morris, Michael (Northampton S)
Shaw, Giles (Pudsey)
Whitelaw, Rt Hon William


Morrison, Charles (Devizes)
Shepherd, Colin
Wiggin, Jerry


Morrison, Hon Peter (Chester)
Shersby, Michael
Winterton, Nicholas


Nelson, Anthony
Silvester, Fred
Young, Sir G. (Ealing, Acton)


Neubert, Michael
Sims, Roger
Younger, Hon George


Onslow, Cranley
Sinclair, Sir George



Page, John (Harrow Went)
Skeet, T. H. H.
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:


Page, Rt Hon R. Graham (Crosby)
Smith, Dudley (Warwick)
Lord James Douglas-Hamilton and


Page, Richard (Workington)
Smith, Timothy John (Ashfield)
Mr. John MacGregor.


Pattie, Geoffrey
Speed, Keith

Question accordingly agreed to.

Schedule 2, as amended, agreed to.

Schedule 3 agreed to.

Clause 11

CULTURAL AND RECREATIVE ACTIVITIES

Question put, That the clause stand part of the Bill:—

The Committee divided: Ayes 223, Noes 191.

Division No. 136]
AYES
[7.14 p.m.


Allaun, Frank
Cowans, Harry
Ford, Ben


Anderson, Donald
Cox, Thomas (Tooting)
Forrester, John


Archer, Rt Hon Peter
Crawford, Douglas
Fowler, Gerald (The Wrekin)


Armstrong, Ernest
Crawshaw, Richard
Freud, Clement


Atkins, Ronald (Preston N)
Crowther, Stan (Rotherham)
Garrett, W. E. (Wallsend)


Atkinson, Norman
Cryer, Bob
George, Bruce


Bain, Mrs Margaret
Cunningham, G. (Islington S)
Golding, John


Barnett, Guy (Greenwich)
Cunningham, Dr J. (Whiteh)
Gould, Bryan


Bates, Alf
Dalyell, Tam
Gourlay, Harry


Bean, R. E.
Davidson, Arthur
Grant, George (Morpeth)


Beith, A. J.
Davies, Bryan (Enfield N)
Grant, John (Islington C)


Bennett, Andrew (Stockport N)
Davies, Ifor (Gower)
Grimond, Rt Hon J.


Bidwell, Sydney
Davis, Clinton (Hackney C)
Grocott, Bruce


Bishop, Rt Hon Edward
Deakins, Eric
Hamilton, James (Bothwell)


Blenkinsop, Arthur
Dean, Joseph (Leeds West)
Hamilton, W. W. (Central Fife)


Boardman, H.
Dell, Rt Hon Edmund
Harrison, Rt Hon Walter


Boothroyd, Miss Betty
Dempsey, James
Hayman, Mrs Helene


Bottomley, Rt Hon Arthur
Doig, Peter
Henderson, Douglas


Boyden, James (Bish Auck)
Dormand, J. D.
Hooley, Frank


Bray, Dr Jeremy
Douglas-Mann, Bruce
Hooson, Emlyn


Brown, Robert C. (Newcastle W)
Dunn, James A.
Horam, John


Buchan, Norman
Dunwoody, Mrs Gwyneth
Howells, Geraint (Cardigan)


Buchanan, Richard
Eadie, Alex
Hoyle, Doug (Nelson)


Butler, Mrs Joyce (Wood Green)
Edge, Geoff
Huckfield, Les


Callaghan, Jim (Middleton &amp; P)
Ellis, John (Brigg &amp; Scun)
Hughes, Rt Hon C. (Anglesey)


Campbell, Ian
Ellis, Tom (Wrexham)
Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)


Canavan, Dennis
English, Michael
Hughes, Roy (Newport)


Carmichael, Nell
Ennals, Rt Hon David
Hunter, Adam


Carter-Jones, Lew's
Evans, Gwynfor (Carmarthen)
Jackson, Miss Margaret (Lincoln)


Castle, Rt Hon Barbara
Evans, Ioan (Aberdare)
Jay, Rt Hon Douglas


Clemitson, Ivor
Ewing, Harry (Stirling)
Jeger, Mrs Lena


Cocks, Rt Hon Michael (Bristol S)
Faulds, Andrew
Jenkins, Hugh (Putney)


Cohen, Stanley
Fernyhough, Rt Hon E.
John, Brynmor


Coleman, Donald
Flannery, Martin
Johnson, James (Hull West)


Cook, Robin F. (Edin C)
Fletcher, Ted (Darlington)
Johnston, Russell (Inverness)


Corbett, Robin
Foot, Rt Hon Michael
Jones, Alec (Rhondda)




Jones, Barry (East Flint)
O'Halloran, Michael
Stewart, Rt Hon M. (Fulham)


Jones, Dan (Burnley)
Orbach, Maurice
Stoddart, David


Kaufman, Gerald
Orme, Rt Hon Stanley
Stott, Roger


Kerr, Russell
Padley, Walter
Taylor, Mrs Ann (Bolton W)


Kilroy-Silk, Robert
Pardoe, John
Thomas, Dafydd (Merioneth)


Lambie, David
Park, George
Thomas, Jeffrey (Abertillery)


Lamond, James
Parker, John
Thomas, Ron (Bristol NW)


Lee, John
Parry, Robert
Thompson, George


Lewis, Arthur (Newham N)
Pavitt, Laurie
Tinn, James


Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)
Panhaligon, David
Tomlinson, John


Litterick, Tom
Phipps, Dr Colin
Torney, Tom


Lyons, Edward (Bradford W)
Price, William (Rugby)
Tuck, Raphael


MacCormick, Iain
Radice, Giles
Wainwright, Edwin (Dearne V)


McDonald, Dr Oonagh
Rees, Rt Hon Merlyn (Leeds S)
Walker, Harold (Doncaster)


McElhone, Frank
Reid, George
Walker, Terry (Kingswood)


MacFarquhar, Roderick
Roberts, Albert (Normanton)
Ward, Michael


McGuire, Michael (Ince)
Roberts, Gwilym (Cannock)
Watkins, David


MacKenzie, Rt Hon Gregor
Robinson, Geoffrey
Watt, Hamish


Mackintosh, John P.
Roderick, Caerwyn
Wellbeloved, James


Maclennan, Robert
Rodgers, George (Chorley)
Welsh, Andrew


McMillan, Tom (Glasgow C)
Rodgers, Rt Hon William (Stockton)
White, Frank R. (Bury)


Madden, Max
Rooker, J. W.
White, James (Pollok)


Magee, Bryan
Roper, John
Whitehead, Phillip


Mahon, Simon
Ross, Rt Hon W. (Kilmarnock)
Wigley, Dafydd


Mallalieu, J. P. W.
Rowlands, Ted
Willey, Rt Hon Frederick


Marks, Kenneth
Sedgemore, Brian
Williams, Alan Lee (Hornch'ch)


Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)
Selby, Harry
Wilson, Alexander (Hamilton)


Maynard, Miss Joan
Shaw, Arnold (Ilford South)
Wilson, Gordon (Dundee E)


Meacher, Michael
Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert
Wilson, Rt Hon Sir Harold (Huyton)


Millan, Rt Hon Bruce
Silkin, Rt Hon S. C. (Dulwich)
Wilson, William (Coventry SE)


Mitchell, Austin
Silverman, Julius
Wise, Mrs Audrey


Molloy, William
Skinner, Dennis
Woodall, Alec


Moonman, Eric
Smith, Cyril (Rochdale)
Woof, Robert


Morris, Alfred (Wythenshawe)
Smith, John (N Lanarkshire)
Wrigglesworth, Ian


Morris, Charles R. (Openshaw)
Snape, Peter
Young, David (Bolton E)


Morris, Rt Hon J. (Aberavon)
Spearing, Nigel



Moyle, Roland
Spiggs, Leslie
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


Mulley, Rt Hon Frederick
Stallard, A. W.
Mr. Joseph Harper and


Noble, Mike
Steel, Rt Hon David
Mr. Ted Graham.


Ogden, Eric
Stewart, Rt Hon Donald





NOES


Aitken, Jonathan
Eden, Rt Hon Sir John
Jessel, Toby


Alison, Michael
Edwards, Nicholas (Pembroke)
Johnson Smith, G. (E Grinstead)


Arnold, Tom
Elliott, Sir William
Jones, Arthur (Daventry)


Atkins, Rt Hon H. (Spelthorne)
Emery, Peter
Jopling, Michael


Atkinson, David (Bournemouth, East)
Eyre, Reginald
Joseph, Rt Hon Sir Keith


Awdry, Daniel
Fairbairn, Nicholas
Kaberry, Sir Donald


Banks, Robert
Fairgrieve, Russell
Kershaw, Anthony


Bell, Ronald
Finsberg, Geoffrey
Kimball, Marcus


Bendall, Vivian (Ilford North)
Fisher, Sir Nigel
King, Evelyn (South Dorset)


Bennett, Sir Frederic (Torbay)
Fletcher, Alex (Edinburgh N)
King, Tom (Bridgwater)


Benyon, W.
Fookes, Miss Janet
Kitson, Sir Timothy


Berry, Hon Anthony
Forman, Nigel
Knight, Mrs Jill


Biffen, John
Fowler, Norman (Sutton C'f'd)
Knox, David


Biggs-Davison, John
Gardner, Edward (S Fylde)
Latham, Michael (Melton)


Body, Richard
Glyn, Dr Alan
Lawrence, Ivan


Boscawen, Hon Robert
Goodhart, Philip
Lawson, Nigel


Bottomley, Peter
Goodhew, Victor
Lloyd, Ian


Bowden, A. (Brighton, Kemptown)
Gorst, John
Loveridge, John


Boyson, Dr Rhodes (Brent)
Gow, Ian (Eastbourne)
McAdden, Sir Stephen


Brittan, Leon
Gower, Sir Raymond (Barry)
McCrindle, Robert


Brocklebank-Fowler, C.
Gray, Hamish
Macfarlane, Neil


Brooke, Peter
Grieve, Percy
MacGregor, John


Bryan, Sir Paul
Griffiths, Eldon
MacKay, Andrew (Stechford)


Buchanan-Smith, Alick
Grist, Ian
Marshall, Michael (Arundel)


Buck, Antony
Grylls, Michael
Marten, Nell


Budgen, Nick
Hall-Davis, A. G. F.
Maude, Angus


Bulmer, Esmond
Hamilton, Michael (Salisbury)
Maudling, Rt Hon Reginald


Burden, F. A.
Hampson, Dr Keith
Mawby, Ray


Carlisle, Mark
Hannam, John
Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin


Chalker, Mrs Lynda
Harrison, Col Sir Harwood (Eye)
Mayhew, Patrick


Clark, William (Croydon S)
Havers, Rt Hon Sir Michael
Meyer, Sir Anthony


Clarke, Kenneth (Rushcliffe)
Hayhoe, Barney
Miller, Hal (Bromsgrove)


Clegg, Walter
Heath, Rt Hon Edward
Mills, Peter


Cooke, Robert (Bristol W)
Hicks, Robert
Mitchell, David (Basingstoke)


Cormack, Patrick
Hodgson, Robin
Moate, Roger


Costain, A. P.
Hordern, Peter
Moore, John (Croydon C)


Crouch, David
Howell, David (Guildford)
More, Jasper (Ludlow)


Dean, Paul (N Somerset)
Hunt, David (Wirral)
Morgan, Geraint


Dodsworth, Geoffrey
Hurd, Douglas
Morris, Michael (Northampton S)


Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James
Hutchison, Michael Clark
Morrison, Charles (Devizes)


Drayson, Burnaby
Irving, Charles (Cheltenham)
Nelson, Anthony


Durant, Tony
James, David
Neubert, Michael







Onslow, Cranley
Rossi, Hugh (Hornsey)
Temple-Morris, Peter


Page, John (Harrow West)
Rost, Peter (SE Derbyshire)
Thatcher, Rt Hon Margaret


Page, Rt Hon Ft. Graham (Crosby)
Sainsbury, Tim
Thomas, Rt Hon P (Hendon S)


Page, Richard (Workington)
St. John-Stevas, Norman
van Straubenzee, W. R.


Pattie, Geoffrey
Shaw, Giles (Pudsey)
Viggers, Peter


Percival, Ian
Shepherd, Colin
Wakeham, John


Pink, R. Bonner
Shersby, Michael
Walder, David (Clitheroe)


Powell, Rt Hon J. Enoch
Silvester, Fred
Walker, Rt Hon P (Worcester)


Prentice, Rt Hon Reg
Sinclair, Sir George
Wall, Patrick


Price, David (Eastleigh)
Skeet, T. H. H.
Walters, Dennis


Prior, Rt Hon James
Smith. Dudley (Warwick)
Warren, Kenneth


Pym, Rt Hon Francis
Smith, Timothy John (Ashfield)
Weatherill, Bernard


Raison, Timothy
Speed, Keith
Wells, John


Rathbone, Tim
Spence, John
Whitelaw, Rt Hon William


Rawlinson, Rt Hon Sir Peter
Sproat, lain
Wiggin, Jerry


Rees, Peter (Dover &amp; Deal)
Stainton, Keith
Winterton, Nicholas


Renton, Rt Hon Sir D. (Hunts)
Stanbrook, Ivor
Young, Sir G. (Ealing, Acton)


Renton, Tim (Mid-Sussex)
Stanley, John
Younger, Hon George


Rhodes James, R.
Steen, Anthony (Wavertree)



Ridley, Hon Nicholas
Stewart, Ian (Hitchin)
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:


Ridsdale, Julian
Stradling Thomas, J.
Mr. Peter Morrison and


Rifkind, Malcolm
Tapsell, Peter
Mr. Jim Lester.


Roberts, Wyn (Conway)
Tebbit, Norman

Question accordingly agreed to.

Clause 11 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 12 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 13

REVIEW OF LOCAL GOVERNMENT STRUCTURE

Question put, That the Clause stand part of the Bill: —

The Committee divided: Ayes 213, Noes 206.

Division No. 137]
AYES
[7.25 p.m.


Allaun, Frank
Dell, Rt Hon Edmund
Huckfield, Les


Archer, Rt Hon Peter
Dempsey, James
Hughes, Rt Hon C. (Anglesey)


Armstrong, Ernest
Doig, Peter
Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)


Atkinson, Norman
Dormand, J. D.
Hughes, Roy (Newport)


Bain, Mrs Margaret
Douglas-Mann, Bruce
Hunter, Adam


Barnett, Guy (Greenwich)
Duffy, A. E. P.
Jackson, Miss Margaret (Lincoln)


Bean, H. E.
Dunn, James A.
Janner, Greville


Beith, A. J.
Dunwoody, Mrs Gwyneth
Jay, Rt Hon Douglas


Bennett, Andrew (Stockport N)
Eadie, Alex
Jeger, Mrs Lena


Bidwell, Sydney
Edge, Geoff
Jenkins, Hugh (Putney)


Bishop, Rt Hon Edward
Ellis, John (Brigg &amp; Scun)
John, Brynmor


Blenkinsop, Arthur
Ellis, Tom (Wrexham)
Johnson, James (Hull West)


Boardman, H.
English, Michael
Johnston, Russell (Inverness)


Boothroyd, Miss Betty
Ennals, Rt Hon David
Jones, Alec (Rhondda)


Bottomley, Rt Hon Arthur
Evans, Gwynfor (Carmarthen)
Jones, Barry (East Flint)


Boyden, James (Bish Auck)
Ewing, Harry (Stirling)
Jones, Dan (Burnley)


Bray, Dr Jeremy
Faulds, Andrew
Kaufman, Gerald


Brown, Robert C. (Newcastle W)
Fernyhough, Rt Hon E.
Kerr, Russell


Buchan, Norman
Flannery, Martin
Kilroy-Silk, Robert o


Buchanan, Richard
Fletcher, Ted (Darlington)
Lambie, David


Butler, Mrs Joyce (Wood Green)
Foot, Rt Hon Michael
Lamond, James


Callaghan, Jim (Middleton &amp; P)
Ford, Ben
Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)


Campbell, Ian
Forrester, John
Litterick, Tom


Canavan, Dennis
Fowler, Gerald (The Wrekin)
Lyon, Alexander (York)


Carmichael, Nell
Freud, Clement
Lyons, Edward (Bradford W)


Carter-Jones, Lewis
George, Bruce
MacCormick, lain


Castle, Rt Hon Barbara
Golding, John
McCusker, H.


Clemitson, Ivor
Gould, Bryan
McDonald, Dr Oonagh


Cocks, Rt Hon Michael (Bristol S)
Gourlay, Harry
McElhone, Frank


Cohen, Stanley
Graham, Ted
MacFarquhar, Roderick


Coleman, Donald
Grant, George (Morpeth)
McGuire, Michael (Ince)


Cook, Robin F. (Edin C)
Grant, John (Islington C)
MacKenzie, Rt Hon Gregor


Corbett, Robin
Grimond, Rt Hon J.
Mackintosh, John P.


Cox, Thomas (Tooting)
Grocott, Bruce
Maclennan, Robert


Crawford, Douglas
Harper, Joseph
McMillan, Tom (Glasgow C)


Crawshaw, Richard
Harrison, Rt Hon Walter
Madden, Max


Crowther, Stan (Rotherham)
Hayman, Mrs Helene
Magee, Bryan


Cryer, Bob
Henderson, Douglas
Mahon, Simon


Cunningham, Dr J. (Whiteh)
Hooley, Frank
Mallalieu, J. P. W.


Davidson, Arthur
Hooson, Emlyn
Marks, Kenneth


Davies, Bryan (Enfield N)
Horam, John
Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)


Davis, Clinton (Hackney C)
Howells, Geraint (Cardigan)
Maynard, Miss Joan


Deakins, Eric
Hoyle, Doug (Nelson)
Meacher, Michael




Millan, Rt Hon Bruce
Roper, John
Torney, Tom


Mitchell, Austin
Ross, Rt Hon W. (Kilmarnock)
Tuck, Raphael


Molyneaux, James
Ross, William (Londonderry)
Wainwright, Edwin (Dearne V)


Moonman, Eric
Rowlands, Ted
Walker, Harold (Doncaster)


Morris, Alfred (Wythenshawe)
Sedgemore, Brian
Walker, Terry (Kingswood)


Morris, Charles R. (Openshaw)
Selby, Harry
Ward, Michael


Morris, Rt Hon J. (Aberavon)
Shaw, Arnold (Ilford South)
Watkins, David


Moyle, Roland
Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert
Watt, Hamish


Mulley, Rt Hon Frederick
Silkin, Rt Hon S. C. (Dulwich)
Wellbeloved, James


Noble, Mike
Silverman, Julius
Welsh, Andrew


Ogden, Eric
Skinner, Dennis
White, Frank R. (Bury)


O'Halloran, Michael
Smith, Cyril (Rochdale)
White, James (Pollok)


Orbach, Maurice
Smith, John (N Lanarkshire)
Whitehead, Phillip


Orme, Rt Hon Stanley
Snape, Peter
Wigley, Dafydd


Padley, Walter
Spearing, Nigel
Willey, Rt Hon Frederick


Pardoe, John
Spiggs, Leslie
Williams, Alan Lee (Hornch'ch)


Park, George
Stallard, A. W.
Wilson, Alexander (Hamilton)


Parry, Robert
Steel, Rt Hon David
Wilson, Gordon (Dundee E)


Pavitt, Laurie
Stewart, Rt Hon Donald
Wilson, Rt Hon Sir Harold (Huyton)


Panhaligon, David
Stewart, Rt Hon M. (Fulham)
Wilson, William (Coventry SE)


Price, William (Rugby)
Sloddart, David
Wise, Mrs Audrey


Radice, Giles
Stott, Roger
Woodall, Alec


Rees, Rt Hon Merlyn (Leeds S)
Taylor, Mrs Ann (Bolton W)
Wool, Robert


Reid, George
Thomas, Dafydd (Merioneth)
Wrigglesworth, Ian


Roberts, Albert (Normanton)
Thomas, Jeffrey (Abertillery)
Young, David (Bolton E)


Roberts, Gwilym (Cannock)
Thomas, Ron (Bristol NW)



Roderick, Caerwyn
Thompson, George
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


Rodgers, George (Chorley)
Tinn, James
Mr. Alf Bates and


Rodgers. Rt Hon William (Stockton)
Tomlinson, John
Mr. James Hamilton.


Rooker, J. W.






NOES


Abse, Leo
Edwards, Nicholas (Pembroke)
King, Evelyn (South Dorset)


Aitken, Jonathan
Elliott, Sir William
King, Tom (Bridgwater)


Alison, Michael
Emery, Peter
Kitson, Sir Timothy


Anderson, Donald
Evans, Fred (Caerphilly)
Knight, Mrs Jill


Arnold, Tom
Evans, Ioan (Aberdare)
Knox, David


Atkins, Rt Hon H. (Spelthorne)
Eyre, Reginald
Latham, Michael (Melton)


Atkins, Ronald (Preston N)
Fairbairn, Nicholas
Lawrence, Ivan


Atkinson, David (Bournemouth, East)
Fairgrieve, Russell
Lawson, Nigel


Awdry, Daniel
Finsberg Geoffrey
Lee, John


Banks, Robert
Fisher, Sir Nigel
Lester, Jim (Beeston)


Bell, Ronald
Fletcher, Alex (Edinburgh N)
Lloyd, Ian


Bendall, Vivian (Ilford North)
Fookes, Miss Janet
Loveridge, John


Bennett, Sir Frederic (Torbay)
Forman, Nigel
McAdden, Sir Stephen


Benyon, W.
Fowler, Norman (Sutton C'f'd)
McCrindle, Robert


Berry, Hon Anthony
Gardner, Edward (S Fylde)
Macfarlane, Neil


Biffen, John
Garrett, W. E. (Wallsend)
MacKay, Andrew (Stechford)


Biggs-Davison, John
Glyn, Dr Alan
Marshall, Michael (Arundel)


Body, Richard
Goodhart, Philip
Marten, Neil


Boscawen, Hon Robert
Goodhew, Victor
Maude, Angus


Bottomley, Peter
Gorst, John
Maudling, Rt Hon Reginald


Bowden, A. (Brighton, Kemptown)
Gow, Ian (Eastbourne)
Mawby, Ray


Boyson, Dr Rhodes (Brent)
Gower, Sir Raymond (Barry)
Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin


Brittan, Leon
Gray, Hamish
Mayhew, Patrick


Brocklebank-Fowler, C.
Grieve, Percy
Meyer, Sir Anthony


Brooke, Peter
Griffiths, Eldon
Miller, Hal (Bromsgrove)


Bryan, Sir Paul
Grist, Ian
Mills, Peter


Buchanan-Smith, Alick
Grylls, Michael
Mitchell, David (Basingstoke)


Buck, Antony
Hall-Davis, A. G. F.
Moate, Roger


Budgen, Nick
Hamilton, Michael (Salisbury)
Molloy, William


Bulmer, Esmond
Hampson, Dr Keith
Moore, John (Croydon C)


Burden, F. A.
Hannam, John
More, Jasper (Ludlow)


Carlisle, Mark
Harrison, Col Sir Harwood (Eye)
Morgan, Geraint


Chalker, Mrs Lynda
Havers, Rt Hon Sir Michael
Morris, Michael (Northampton S)


Clark, William (Croydon S)
Hayhoe, Barney
Morrison, Charles (Devizes)


Clarke, Kenneth (Rushcliffe)
Heath, Rt Hon Edward
Morrison, Hon Peter (Chester)


Clegg, Walter
Hicks, Robert
Nelson, Anthony


Cooke, Robert (Bristol W)
Hodgson, Robin
Neubert, Michael


Cormack, Patrick
Hordern, Peter
Onslow, Cranley


Costain, A. P.
Howell, David (Guildford)
Page, John (Harrow West)


Cowans, Harry
Hunt David (Wirral)
Page, Rt Hon R. Graham (Crosby)


Crouch, David
Hurd, Douglas
Page, Richard (Workington)


Cunningham, G. (Islington S)
Hutchison, Michael Clark
Parker, John


Dalyell, Tam
Irving, Charles (Cheltenham)
Pattie, Geoffrey


Davies, Ifor (Gower)
James, David
Percival, Ian


Dean, Joseph (Leeds West)
Jessel, Toby
Phipps, Dr Colin


Dean, Paul (N Somerset)
Johnson Smith, G. (E Grinstead)
Pink, R. Bonner


Dodsworth, Geoffrey
Jones, Arthur (Daventry)
Powell, Rt Hon J. Enoch


Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James
Jopling, Michael
Prentice, Rt Hon Reg


Drayson, Burnaby
Joseph, Rt Hon Sir Keith
Price, David (Eastleigh)


Dunlop, John
Kaberry, Sir Donald
Prior, Rt Hon James


Durant, Tony
Kershaw, Anthony
Pym, Rt Hon Francis


Eden, Rt Hon Sir John
Kimball, Marcus
Raison, Timothy







Rathbone, Tim
Sinclair, Sir George
van Straubenzee, W. R.


Rawlinson, Rt Hon Sir Peter
Skeet, T. H. H.
Viggers, Peter


Rees, Peter (Dover &amp; Deal)
Smith, Dudley (Warwick)
Wakeham, John


Renton, Rt Hon Sir D. (Hunts)
Smith, Timothy John (Ashfield)
Walder, David (Clitheroe)


Renton, Tim (Mid-Sussex)
Speed, Keith
Walker, Rt Hon P (Worcester)


Rhodes James, R.
Spence, John
Wall, Patrick


Ridsdale, Julian
Sproat, Iain
Walters, Dennis


Rifkind, Malcolm
Stainton, Keith
Warren, Kenneth


Roberts, Wyn (Conway)
Stanbrook, Ivor
Weatherill, Bernard


Robinson, Geoffrey
Stanley, John
Wells, John


Rossi, Hugh (Hornsey)
Steen, Anthony (Wavertree)
Whitelaw, Rt Hon William


Rost, Peter (SE Derbyshire)
Stewart, Ian (Hitchin)
Wiggin, Jerry


Sainsbury, Tim
Stradling Thomas, J.
Winterton, Nicholas


St. John-Stevas, Norman
Tapsell, Peter
Younger, Hon George


Shaw, Giles (Pudsey)
Tebbit, Norman



Shepherd, Colin
Temple-Morris, Peter
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:


Shersby, Michael
Thatcher, Rt Hon Margaret
Sir George Young and


Silvester, Fred
Thomas, Rt Hon P (Hendon S)
Mr. John MacGregor.

Question accordingly agreed to.

Clause 13 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 14 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

The First Deputy Chairman: This concludes the Questions which I am required to put at this hour.

Mr. Francis Pym: On a point of order, Sir Myer. I wanted to draw your attention to the situation in which the Committee now finds itself. We understand that you have to operate within the terms of the business motion, but what has happened up to the end of Clause 14 is this. The Government dropped Clause 1 altogether. We completed our discussion on Clause 10. We began to debate one amendment to Clause 2 and one or two amendments to Schedule 2. Apart from that, the rest of the clauses have gone without any debate whatsoever, and I think that that is a legislative scandal. It is worse than what happened over the Scotland Bill. I believe that the Committee ought to express to you its feelings that this is a legislative scandal.

Several Hon. Members: Several Hon. Members rose—

The First Deputy Chairman: Order. As the right hon. Member for Cambridgeshire (Mr. Pym) knows full well, file Chair is bound to operate by the Business Committee's decision, which was, I remind hon. Members, passed unanimously by the House.

Mr. Pym: Further to the point of order, Sir Myer. It is right to say that in the interests of time the business motion was not voted against, but our proceedings do no credit to the House of Commons.

The First Deputy Chairman: I do not know about that. All I know is that it

was passed unanimously. I do not know the reasons.

Clause 15 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Mr. Gow: On a point of order, Sir Myer. You will have seen from the provisional selection of amendments that there were 32 amendments or groups of amendments selected by the Chairman of Ways and Means. In fact, during this afternoon we were able to debate only three of those amendments or groups of amendments. May I reinforce what my right hon. Friend the Member for Cambridgeshire (Mr. Pym) said—that this is not the way in which even the Government themselves intended the guillotine to operate and that the way in which we are debating the Bill is bringing the House of Commons and the legislative process into the greatest contempt?

The First Deputy Chairman: There is no point in pursuing the matter. We are discussing the Bill according to the recommendations and suggestions of the Business Committee.

Clause 16

STANDING ORDERS

7.45 p.m.

Mr. Brittan: I beg to move Amendment No. 220, in page 7, line 17, at end add—
'(4) The standing orders shall not have effect until they have been approved by a resolution of each House of Parliament.'.
In this part of the Bill we come to consider the detailed operation of the Welsh Assembly, thereby adding flesh to the skeleton of the Assembly's creation. This amendment gives the House of Commons the power to approve the standing orders of the Assembly and requires those standing orders to be approved by the House of Commons if they are to have effect.
I stress that this is not a case of the House of Commons taking over from the Assembly a specific function. It is not suggested that the House of Commons should decide what the standing orders should be. It is merely a matter of the House of Commons having a reasonable degree of supervisory power and the right to veto standing orders proposed and formulated by the Welsh Assembly.
In moving this amendment, I stress that in the Wales Bill we are creating what is in effect a written constitution for Wales. The fact that the Welsh Assembly does not have penary legislative powers, although it has very substantial legislative powers, does not any the less make the Bill a constitution for Wales. As such, the standing orders of the Assembly assume crucial importance.
The reason for this is that the way in which the Assembly is to operate, the way in which it is to exercise its very substantial powers, appears in the context of this Bill only in the barest and most general outlines. All the rest is to be left to the Assembly.

Mr. Dayell: I wonder whether I am in order in bringing to your attention, Sir Myer, the fact that there are present on the Government Back Benches a Scot who thinks this whole idea preposterous, my hon. Friend the Member for Stock-port North (Mr. Bennett), who is interested in freedom of information, and my hon. Friend the Member for Wrexham (Mr. Ellis), who has his own view of world government. There is no one else connected with the Government side. Who on earth wants this Bill?

Mr. Brittan: I welcome that intervention. It is a salutary one. It is all too easy to go on absorbed in the detail of the Bill, which requires careful analysis, and not realise the artificiality of the debate. The Bill has no significant or substantial body of support. It does not appear to attract sufficient interest among those who support a Government who choose to put it forward for there to be other than the scantiest representation of the Bill's supporters.

Mr. Tom Ellis: Mr. Tom Ellis rose—

Mr. Brittan: No. I must not give way to the hon. Member, especially in view of the guillotine. I think that it would be better for me to carry on with my argu-

ment about the standing orders of the Assembly.

Mr. Ellis: Hear, hear.

Mr. Brittan: If that was the hon. Member's point, I am happy to relieve him of the necessity to make it.
The Bill sets out only in the most general terms the powers of the Assembly and the way in which it is to operate. In Clauses 18 and 19 and the subsequent clauses, the Bill sets up for the Assembly this very curious hybrid, concealed form of government in which there is a Cabinet system which is concealed as being other than a Cabinet system, an Executive which pretends to be other than what it really is, and a Chief Executive, who is not what that name means to anyone who is used to the term.
The Bill also contrives to set up a committee structure of a particularly undesirable kind which we shall consider in greater detail later, and it really seems to consist of the worst possible features of the local government system in the creation of an Assembly which is purporting to be an Assembly acting for the whole of Wales and exercising powers at the moment granted to and exercised by central Government.
That aspect of the operation of the Assembly is provided by the Bill, and this curious form of Cabinet government under another name—the crime which is not prepared to disclose its identity—is a matter which we shall want to debate.
Apart from the operation of the Assembly, there is little in the Bill about what is to happen. We are told in Clause 16(2) that
The standing orders shall include provision for the election of a presiding officer".
Is it necessary to insert that in the Bill? Then, in Clause 16(3) we are told that
The standing orders may include provivision for preserving order in the proceedings of the Assembly, including provision for excluding a member from such proceedings.
That is an extremely important provision. It means that, if we do not retain some form of scrutiny of what the standing orders actually say, the standing orders may include provision whereby a Member who is elected by the people of his constituency can be excluded from proceedings for an indefinite period which is not specified in the Bill and which is up to the


Assembly to decide, for reasons which are described in the most general terms as the preserving of order, which can cover almost anything or nothing.
I am not suggesting that a Welsh Assembly elected by the people of Wales is likely to abuse that power of the standing orders. But I think that as it is a subordinate body deliberately created as such by this Parliament, it is not unreasonable that so Draconian a power should at least come under a measure of supervision by the House of Commons with the House of Commons having at least a power of veto, if no more than that, which is al] that this amendment proposes.
I shall not go into the implications of Clause 16(3) in great detail. However, I draw the attention of the Committee to the debate that we had on the comparable clause in the Scotland Bill. On that occasion the right hon. Member for Down, South (Mr. Powell) pointed out that under that innocent provision there were fundamental constitutional implications and that merely to say in an innocent sort of way, as though it was like saying that a teacher could control traffic in a school playground, that the Assembly could prescribe standing orders which might include excluding Members from its proceedings was a totally unsatisfactory way of legislating if we were seriously electing an Assembly which had any right to that title.
In Clause 17 one sees that the standing orders
shall include precision for securing that members with pecuniary interests, as defined by the standing orders … disclose them".
Of course, the standing orders can define "pecuniary interests" in any way that they like.
Clause 21 gives an even clearer indication of the importance of the standing orders for the future of the people of Wales and their Government. But there is a total absence of control by regulation as to what those standing orders should say. Clause 21 states that subordinate legislation which is handed over to the Assembly, but which would continue to be exercised by the Welsh Office, would be subject to
annulment or approval by either or both Houses of Parliament".

In those circumstances, the Assembly cannot exercise the power of making such subordinate legislation by means of one of its infamous committee. It has to be done by the Assembly as a whole. So far, so good. But Clause 21(3) goes on to say:
In such cases of urgency as may be specified for the purposes of this section by the standing orders of the Assembly, a committee may be charged with the exercise of a power.
in respect of the previous provisions of Clause 21. Therefore, one is saying that if the standing orders state that the case is an urgent one, then, in spite of Clause 21, the Committee alone can exercise legislative power—because that is what it is—and if the enactment is couched in wide terms, the legislative power can be a very substantial one.
As we saw in the debate last Thursday, a major change of policy, such as the abolition or the creation of direct-grant schools, can be secured by subordinate legislation and not by primary legislation. If the standing orders of the Assembly are so couched as to enable the situation to be regarded as one of urgency, then a Committee of the Assembly can pass an enactment of that kind and there will be nothing that anyone can do about it.
If we are to have a provision of that kind, if the Assembly is to have a power of that kind and if a Committee of the Assembly in cases of urgency is to have a power of that kind, it does not seem too much to say that the House of Commons should at least have the power, not to define what cases of urgency may be, but at least to be satisfied that the description of cases of urgency in the standing orders devised by the Assembly itself is adequate and reasonable. Only if this amendment is passed would that power lie in the hands of the House of Commons.
I have concentrated on the vaguenesses of the clauses which specifically related to the standing orders of the Assembly. But I prefaced my remarks by saying just how few such clauses were. For the most part the Assembly can create the standing orders at will and in whatever shape or form it wishes. In that situation, it seems to me, the proposal that the House of Commons should have a veto over the standing orders—and no more than a veto—is not a case of interference in the domestic affairs of the


Assembly or trying to keep the Assembly on apron strings; rather, it is saying that if the constitution of Wales is in part to be created by the Welsh Assembly itself—and the standing orders will indeed form part of that constitution—at least the body which creates the constitution should have a final say with regard to such matters.
I believe that this is of great practical importance as well as constitutional and theoretical importance. Some hon. Members who are interested in what goes on in Scotland may have read in the Press recently suggestions—I do not know how authoritative—to the effect that the Labour Party in Scotland, which may have an influential role in the Scottish Assembly, proposes to use the Scottish Assembly as a laboratory of constitutional and parliamentary change and to turn parliamentary procedure upside down.
One reads from the reports that the Scottish people are less than happy about the changes that are proposed in the operation of the Assembly. It is suggested that certain proposals will be subject to the control of outside bodies and so on. That is a vivid illustration of what could happen. Already, before the Scotland Bill is anywhere near enactment, let alone approved by the people of Scotland, we have a situation in which one of the major interested parties is telling us of the major constitutional and parliamentary changes that it proposes to use through the standing orders and through its hoped-for power to control those standing orders.
It may be entirely healthy that the Scottish and Welsh Assemblies, if they are to be set up, should be used as a laboratory for constitutional and parliamentary change. I do not rule out the possibility that one or other or both of the Assemblies, through their standing orders, may have a great deal to teach this House of Commons about the reform of it's own procedures, which we Conservatives in no sense regard as perfect or the last word. But the proposals that have so far emerged are in some respects alarming. Let us hope that they will be as healthily invocative as one could wish. If that is so, there is nothing in the amendment which prevents this House from taking note and adopting or adapting such procedures. If anything, it ensures that

the standing orders—if they are so invocative—will come formally to the notice of this House and we shall learn the better for being required to approve or to disapprove of them.
If those opportunities for constitutional and parliamentary change are abused—at this stage I do not think that can be ruled out as inconceivable—it is not asking too much of the House of Commons to be the arbiter not of the contents of those standing orders but of their adequacy and reasonableness. If they are rejected, it would still be for the Assembly to have another go in order to produce an alternative set of standing orders which would exclude the parts objected to or which would alter them in a way that would render them unobjectionable.
For these reasons I ask the Committee to give serious consideration to what we regard as a wholly constructive proposal. It would not be inconsistent with the measure of devolution granted by this Bill—strongly as we oppose it—and it would give a safeguard to the constitutional viability and desirability of the scheme for Wales as a whole.

8 p.m.

Mr. Dalyell: May I place on the record that the reason that you called me first on the issue of the nuts and bolts of the Welsh Assembly, Sir Myer, was that no Welshman was standing up to be called.

The First Deputy Chairman: Order. I think that the hon. Member is wrong. I shall let him into a secret. While I have been sitting here occupying the Chair I have been listening carefully to the debate, and I am sorely tempted to offer my services as the First Chairman of the proposed Assembly.

Mr. Peter Temple-Morris: On a point of order, Sir Myer. May I point out that not every one who is a Member for an English constituency is necessarily English. A Welsh Member did stand up but he was on this side of the Committee, not the Government side.

The First Deputy Chairman: Order. I know that the hon. Member qualifies under the heading that the hon. Member for West Lothian has outlined, but I do not think that I shall change my mind about whom I shall call.

Mr. Tom Ellis: On a point of order, Sir Myer. May I point out that in the previous debate nine Welshmen spoke, six of whom were in favour of the Bill and three against?

Mr. Dalyell: I still think that it is very odd that if there is an overwhelming desire for a Welsh Assembly, at the critical moment when we are discussing the nuts and bolts of the Bill—

Mr. Hooson: This is not critical.

Mr. Dalyell: If it is not critical, then I do not know what we are doing here.

Mr. Hooson: Many hon. Members consider that the amendments that follow this amendment are more important. That may be why they want to curtail the debate on this one so that they will have time left to discuss the more important amendments.

Mr. Dalyell: That is the reason why I shall be brief in my contribution. I simply want to ask the Front Bench one question. Before I do I might add that I believe it rather strange—with respect to the Under-Secretary—that on this kind of issue there is no Law Officer present. I would have thought that the presence of a Law Officer was highly desirable to answer the points put forward by the hon. Member for Cleveland and Whitby (Mr. Brittan).
I shall confine myself to one question. Is it conceivable that if there is an elected Welsh Assembly, it will have more powers than those outlined in the Bill? I go back to an intervention earlier from my hon. Friend the Member for Wrexham (Mr. Ellis), with which the Government Front Bench agreed. He suggested that there would be no trouble of this kind and that the Welsh Assembly would not ask for more powers. He claimed, and the Government Front Bench agreed, that the Assembly would be content to be circumscribed within the powers in the Bill.
However, my hon. Friend the Member for Wrexham and I are Members of another Assembly—the European Parliament. That is not a powerful body. However, its members spend an unconscionable amount of time in Strasbourg, Luxembourg and Brussels bemoaning the fact that that Assembly does not have sufficient power. Its Members spend hour

after hour, day after day, complaining about the nature of the Parliament. Our colleagues in Italy, Germany and France say that if only they had other powers they could do so many more things. That is the very nature of any Assembly—

The First Deputy Chairman: Order. I am beginning to realise that I may have made a mistake in calling the hon. Member for West Lothian. The argument that he is expounding has nothing whatever to do with the amendment, which says that the standing orders of the proposed Assembly shall not have effect until they have been scrutinised and approved by a resolution of each House of Parliament.

Mr. Dalyell: I do not wish to delay the Committee, Sir Myer, but as I said on the Scotland Bill, this is a discussion of the nuts and bolts issue. This cannot be swept aside as a matter of order. In fact, it would be very dangerous to do so. This is the nitty gritty of the whole scheme under discussion. If the Assembly will not ask for more powers, what on earth are these Committees going to do with themselves?
I ask the Front Bench a very simple question. Are the Welsh Members to be full-time or part-time? If the Undersecretary would answer that it would curtail my speech considerably.

The First Deputy Chairman: Order. The Chair can curtail the hon. Member's speech by ruling it completely out of order.

Mr. Dalyell: This Bill is even more ill-thought-out than the Scotland Bill. I do not usually make bargains with the Chair, Sir Myer, but I shall make a bargain with the Committee. I shall sit down straight away if the Under-Secretary will tell me whether the Welsh Assembly will be full time or part time.

The First Deputy Chairman: Order. The Under-Secretary is not answering. This is not the proper time to answer that question.

Mr. Dalyell: But it is a simple matter. If the Under-Secretary would say whether the Assembly will be full-time or part-time I could finish my speech.

Mr. D. E. Thomas: Perhaps the hon. Member for West Lothian would tell us


whether the House of Commons is full time or part time.

Mr. Dalyell: This is a full-time House in my opinion. Will the Welsh Assembly be meeting for 37 weeks a year? Can Members of that Assembly expect to earn a reasonable living out of the Assembly? Will this be their main job and will they be able to support their families on their Members' salaries? I find it absolutely astonishing that the Under-Secretary will not answer. Here we have a Bill that has been guillotined and yet I still cannot get an answer from the Minister to the most simple down-to-earth question.

Mr. Alec Jones: That has nothing to do with the amendment.

Mr. Dalyell: If the Under-Secretary wants to shut me up he will tell me whether the Welsh Assembly Members will be full time or part time.

Mr. Budgen: Perhaps the hon. Member for West Lothian (Mr. Dalyell) would inquire whether Welsh Members of the Assembly will be paid on the basis of the Assembly being full time or part time. There is a distinction between Members and the Assembly. We could have a full-time Assembly which had part-time Members. Perhaps the hon. Member could lever out of the Government Front Bench some information on the basis of how the Welsh Assembly Members are to be paid.

The First Deputy Chairman: Order. The next question that the hon. Member will ask is whether the Members of the Welsh Assembly will be males or females. That is the sort of situation that we are getting ourselves into. The hon. Member for West Lothian can raise this matter on Report or Third Reading. He may get an answer then. Obviously, he will not get it this evening.

Mr. Dalyell: Some hope, Sir Myer! I did ask questions about the Scotland Bill on Third Reading and the Lord President said that he would devote his speech to these points. However on reading his speech neither you, Sir Myer, nor I could be very much wiser about the questions that he was supposed to answer. This is one of our great failures. We have failed to winkle out of the Front Bench the most elementary facts about the Bill.
I want to ask another question if I cannot get an answer on that last one. Are the Welsh Assemblymen to be paid as much as the Scots for the Standing Committees. What are the Government's ideas on this? If a Welshman comes from North Wales he will have to keep two homes going, as I do, or, he will have to make hotel arrangements. One cannot come from Dolgellau or Merioneth and commute to Cardiff without having such arrangements. A Member of the Welsh Assembly travelling such distances would have to have the same expenses as a Member of the House of Commons. This is a matter of public interest. People want to know whether a Welsh Assemblyman will be paid as much as a Member of the House of Commons.

The First Deputy Chairman: I have a high regard for the hon. Member for West Lothian, which extends over many years. I want him to accept the assurance that he will be given the answers at the proper stage.

Mr. Dalyell: You have an odd way of showing your affection, Sir Myer. I wish I had your confidence. On the Scotland Bill we asked some simple questions, but four years after the project had been launched we still did not know the answers. Is this to be a 37-weeks-a-year Assembly or not? Unless we know whether it will be part time, full time or half time, how can we discuss an amendment such as Amendment No. 220? This matter has the greatest relevance to the standing orders, committee work and all the rest of it.

Mr. Budgen: Has the hon. Gentleman written to Ministers and asked them whether they will answer these questions? Sometimes in the heat of debate it is said that answers will be given but in the end they are not given.

Mr. Dalyell: I write endless letters to the Privy Council. There is a whole series of them, which is worth reading.
I do not want to try the patience of my colleagues. I am not surprised that the whole scheme was never thought out. Again, we have come up against the sheer bare rock of incredulity. It is incredible that the Minister are not willing to shut me up straight away by telling me the nature of this animal. It is disgraceful that a scheme should be brought this far


with no clear idea of what the Assemblymen are to do or the nature of their duties. If they are expected to work 37 or 38 weeks in a year, as we do here, without legislative powers and without the powers which the Scots will possess, what on earth are they to do other than meddle in local government?
We know that the Welsh are great orators, but can they keep talking that long? I know that the Welsh are much more eloquent than the Scots. The Welsh have beautiful voices and they have everything going for them. They are great orators and marvellous politicians, and I have the greatest respect for them. That is why they are such a power in the Labour Party. However, even the Welsh politicians will be hard put to it to keep the Assembly going five days a week, 37 weeks in the year.
I do not apologise for mentioning these matters, because they are the guts of the present argument. I hope that I have given the Minister ample time to provide some answers. I see on the Government Front Bench my hon. Friend the Member for Neath (Mr. Coleman), who is a Government Whip. I wish that he were able to come to the Box to explain these matters. With that impossible thought, I give up. I do not think the Front Bench occupants know what they are talking about.

8.15 p.m.

Mr. Temple-Morris: I hope that the hon. Member for West Lothian (Mr. Dalyell) will never give up but will continue to ornament our debates.

The First Deputy Chairman: I must inform the Committee that I am leaving the Chair. I know that my successor will have all the answers to give the hon. Member for West Lothian (Mr. Dalyell).

Mr. Temple-Morris: Now that you have taken the Chair, Mr. Godman Irvine, may I repeat to you the hope that the hon. Member for West Lothian will not give up, anguished though he may be on the devolution question? I hope that he will continue to contribute to our proceedings.
The central point mentioned by the hon. Gentleman was very much akin to the point adumbrated by my hon. Friend the Member for Cleveland and Whitby (Mr. Brittan). We are dealing

with the subject of power. Indeed, it was suggested when the amendment was moved that we were dealing with a Cabinet system, which appears to be completely new terrain.
I wish to reinforce the basis put forward by my hon. Friend the Member for Cleveland and Whitby. We all appreciate that any political body will clamour for more power. The amendment seeks a reasonable degree of supervisory power, because we do not know how this system will work. It may work out in a different way, but this could develop into an even greater power centre than the one we are used to in this country. It could have far greater power than the House of Commons has ever exercised.
We are dealing in this discussion with a Cabinet or Committee system, and we shall come later to the detail. We shall later be discussing words such as "leaders" and "chief executives". In terms of committees whose standing orders we are now discussing, we have a combination not only of executive-type power but of democratic power as expressed by the representation of the Assembly as a whole. Those committees will mirror the representation of the Assembly as a whole. There will be a concentration of executive and democratic power all within the same committee.
We all know that our committee system at Westminster is developing at present, but it is dissimilar from the combination of power that reposes in the committee system in the United States. That system is often vaunted and given as an example. In the United States the committee system is applied purely to the legislature and the separation of powers from the executive. Therefore, it is important to stress that potentially there is an immense amount of power that can be exercised in a way that we do not at present envisage.
We ask in our amendment, which is a constructive provision, for a reasonable degree of supervisory power. Indeed, I hope that everything we put forward in this debate is reasonably constructive. I hope that the Minister in his reply will deal seriously with our points. He was less than charitable to the hon. Member for West Lothian. We know that the House of Commons is a full-time body,


but we also know that not all Members are full-time Members. No doubt in the Welsh Assembly there will be a balance.
Therefore, we should have a ministerial answer on that matter. We shall be dealing with standing orders that will govern a sector of power that may be far greater than anything we have seen in this country. If the amendment is to be resisted, we are surely entitled to a reasonable explanation from the Minister.

Mr. W. Benyon: I am in some disagreement with my hon. Friends since I do not believe I can support this amendment. I regard standing orders as extremely important. We all know that the Standing Orders of the House of Commons are most important. I personally believe that one of the easiest ways to control the Executive at Westminster is by having entrenched Standing Orders.
In this discussion we are envisaging the setting up of an Assembly, and it is surely extraordinary to take that course and to insist that that Assembly should submit its standing orders to this House for scrutiny. This House cannot add to them but can only reject them.
We do not take a similar course in respect of local government. We say to local government "Your powers go so far, and if you exceed them you will be ultra vires. If that happens you will be surcharged." Then regulations are laid down to prevent corruption. However, we do not supervise the standing orders of local government, and we should not do so if the worst happens and the Assembly is set up.
As the Bill is drafted, the House of Commons retains the right of veto. If the Welsh Assembly were to take some terrible step and become so corrupt or heavy handed that we had to take action, it would be open to the House of Commons to respond to the feelings expressed by the Welsh people and to get rid of the Assembly. One cannot see that happening, but it is technically possible under the Bill.
There is so much more in the Bill that is objectionable in every way that to tinker with this aspect of it is to fail to see the wood for the trees.

Mr. Andrew F. Bennett: I oppose the amendment, although I welcome the fact that some time has been given to probing what sort of standing orders might be forthcoming when the Assembly is established.
I oppose the amendment because it appears to be a hidden veto. We could have a situation in which the referendum is held, the Assembly is set up, elections are held, and the Assembly meets and draws up its standing orders, and because they do not meet with the approval of the House of Commons they can be vetoed. We might have an unfortunate situation in which the Assembly could not get on with any of its business. That might arise because of a change in the political party that controls the House of Commons, the incoming party exercising a veto. It seems that the proposal is unsatisfactory.
The problem is that we do not have spelt out in the Bill specific and clear standing orders. The Scotland and Wales Bill went much further than this measure in setting out proposals for standing orders. One suspects that because the Government did not want to have a long Bill, and wanted to try to reduce the opportunities for debate and argument on it, they cut out most of the standing orders. One suspects that they chose to cut them to the very minimum. Their excuse is that it is up to the Assembly to make its own standing orders. I suspect that convenience in getting the Bill through the House was a more important consideration.
We have the unfortunate situation that candidates will have to stand for election without knowing what sort of body they are to be members of if elected. They may assume that it will involve part-time work. They may assume that the remuneration will be for part-time work. They may feel that they want to have an open government system. They may want to have a clear definition of Members' interests. They will want to know the exact position of the Welsh language in the Assembly. If they are elected, they will begin to participate in the work of the Assembly. They may find that it draws up standing orders that are contrary to their beliefs. If they are in the minority, they will probably find it difficult to influence the drawing up of the standing orders. They may have a set of


standing orders imposed on them that is contrary to their beliefs. What should they do? Should they resign and cause by-elections straight away?
It seems only logical that we should have clearly set out the standing orders of the Assembly before the referendum so that the people of Wales know the sort of Assembly that they are to have. There are the simple points of a declaration of interests, how far there will be open government and access by everyone in Wales to the documents that the Assembly will use. There should be clearly set out the position of the Welsh language and its use in the Assembly, including its proceedings. Unless these matters are set out before the referendum, the people of Wales will be asked to vote for a pig in a poke. They will not be clear how the Assembly will work.
When the elections take place, candidates will be asked to stand for an Assembly whose rules and regulations they do not know.

Mr. Geraint Howells: The hon. Gentleman, like myself, has been in the House of Commons for some time. Did he understand the rules and regulations of this place before he became a Member?

Mr. Bennett: I agree that I did not understand fully the rules and regulations. However, since I entered this place we have dealt with the whole issue of Members' declaration of interests. We have tried to impose on the House an alteration of its standing orders. The hon. Gentleman will be well aware that the House failed to carry that through because one Member vetoed the proposal on the register of Members' interests. As a consequence of political difficulties, the House refuses to resolve that difficulty. That clearly illustrates the difficulty of imposing standing orders after candidates have been elected.
I am sure that the problem that we have experienced would not have occurred if we had formally set out that those who stand for elections to this place will be expected to sign a declaration of interest when elected. If that were done, no one could complain that the rules had been changed. It seems fundamental that for the Welsh legislation we set out the rules before the people vote and

before candidates put themselves forward for election.
I hope that we shall throw out the amendment. I hope that between now and the Bill's enactment, during which it will pass through another place and, if necessary, return here, the Government will further consider the standing orders of the Assembly and either have them clearly set out or, ideally, come forward with amendments to put standing orders into the Bill. That will enable a public debate to take place. By the time that the Bill is enacted there could, in that way, be some consensus.
The hon. Member for Cleveland and Whitby (Mr. Brittan) took up the criticism of the Labour Party in Scotland. At least it has begun to discuss these matters and to put forward suggestions for the standing orders of the Assembly. I do not think that the hon. Gentleman should be criticising it for taking that course. Indeed, he should be welcoming that approach and saying that we need a major debate on the standing orders that will be used in both Assemblies. In my view, they should be incorporated in the legislation and not imposed on the Assemblies by themselves afterwards.

Mr. Charles Morrison: I shall be brief. My hon. Friend the Member for Buckingham (Mr. Benyon) has spoken on the lines that I wish to pursue.
I am not arguing for or against the principle of devolution in considering the amendment. Given that we have a Bill that purports to entrust the Welsh people with a greater and more direct portion of their own government, it seems that we have to entrust the Welsh people, first, to elect whomsoever they wish to their Assembly and, secondly, that having happened to entrust the members of the Assembly with the power to decide how they should organise their affairs, in particular we should entrust the Welsh people with the responsibility of deter mining what standing orders the Assembly should have.
My hon. Friend the Member for Cleveland and Whitby (Mr. Brittan), with his usual ability, dexterity and charm, has moved that the Assembly should not be allowed in the ultimate total power to decide what standing orders it should have. I ask myself why.
I believe that there are two reasons. First, my hon. Friend has drawn attention to the somewhat extraordinary new system of government—namely, the blend of Cabinet government and local government—that is proposed within the Bill. My hon. Friend is right to criticise that system. We shall be criticising it later, if time allows, when we reach other amendments. It may be a reason for the system proposed in the Bill for the establishment of standing orders to be unsatisfactory and for the amendment—at least in the judgment of my hon. Friend—to be required.
There is another matter to which my hon. Friend the Member for Cleveland and Whitby did not draw attention. Last week we debated briefly a proposal that election to the Welsh Assembly should be on the basis of proportional representation. It was argued—unfortunately only too briefly—that the first-past-the-post system would not produce a representative Assembly. Worse, that it would produce an Assembly which almost certainly would produce one-party government for as long as any of us cared to look ahead, unless the Welsh people either changed their political allegiance or decided to vote against their political judgment and principles. I do not agree with their political judgment and principles in the main, but I believe that they should be enabled to vote in such a way if that is what they wish.
8.30 p.m.
The trouble about a system which produces one-party government endlessly is that, if the voters stick to their political principles, it will be utterly impossible for them to get rid of a Government of the ruling party in the Assembly which may, in the drawing up of standing orders, do things which are contrary to what the Welsh people want and, indeed, approve of.
A system of proportional representation would reflect more accurately the different balances of political opinion within the Principality and would be likely to shift power, if not totally, certainly adequately, to ensure that one party did not have monopoly control. That might have been at the back of the mind of my hon. Friend the Member for Cleveland and Whitby when he suggested that Parliament should have overriding control of the design of standing orders for the

Assembly. My hon. Friend did not say that, because I know full well that he has doubts about proportional representation, but perhaps this debate is not unimportant in that it may be the first time that my hon. Friend has begun to see the light and to realise that there are many reasons why a system of proportional representation would be best for Wales—indeed, for the whole of Great Britain. I think that we may be setting out in a new direction and that we may look forward to better and greater things from my hon. Friend in future.
In the meantime, despite these reasons, one of which has been put forward by my hon. Friend and the other by myself, why the amendment should be supported, the Committee cannot have it all ways. Either we give the Welsh people the power to make decisions about their Assembly—that means giving them considerable power—or we do not give them an Assembly at all. That may well be what the Welsh people will ultimately decide in the referendum, but it is up to them, not us.

Mr. Tom Ellis: I have found this little debate curiously heartening in some respects. Some hon. Members are not so passionately committed to or against this measure as not to be able to apply a critical and objective intelligence to the issues. One or two hon. Members appear to apply this objectivity which has not been prevalent so far in Committee. That is why I say that this debate has been somewhat heartening for me.
I thought that the hon. Member for Cleveland and Whitby (Mr. Brittan) was a little unsure of himself when he introduced the amendment, knowing that he was proposing something that might not be entirely right. Indeed, he seemed to go out of his way to say that this was not a case of the House of Commons taking over the functions of the Welsh Assembly. He said that there was no intention of keeping the Welsh Assembly on the apron-strings of this place; it was a matter of a reasonable degree of supervisory power. Those were the kind of remarks that he made and they seemed to imply that he felt that there was something about the proposal that might not be 100 per cent. sense. Indeed, I thought that his hon. Friends the Members for Buckingham (Mr. Benyon) and Devizes (Mr. Morrison) and my hon. Friend the


Member for Stockport, North (Mr. Bennett) made the point fairly and objectively.

Mr. Brittan: I said that not because I had any doubts about the amendment, but because it was an accurate description of what the amendment seeks to do.

Mr. Ellis: If that is so, the hon. Member for Cleveland and Whitby and my hon. Friend the Member for West Lothian (Mr. Dalyell) do not seem to have grasped the issue in the way in which the hon. Member for Devizes has grasped it. The hon. Member for Cleveland and Whitby said in effect that we were creating a constitution for Wales. That is strange because, when compared with the provisions of the Scotland Bill, these provisions are well within the unitary State of the United Kingdom. Therefore, the ultimate decision and veto is in the hands of the House of Commons. To that extent, the hon. Member for Cleveland and Whitby is making a profound mistake.

Mr. Dalyell: Can my hon. Friend the Member for Wrexham answer a question that the Front Bench cannot answer? Are we to have part-time or full-time Assemblymen?

Mr. Ellis: I shall come to that. That is a misconceived question.

Mr. Dalyell: It is a simple question.

Mr. Ellis: It is perhaps simplistic but far from simple. My hon. Friend the Member for West Lothian has missed the point. Reference has been made to the to the possibility of the Welsh Assembly abolishing direct-grant schools. Hon. Members have said that it would be a terrible thing if the House of Commons were not able to supervise the standing orders to prevent that abolition from coming into effect.

Mr. Brittan: I am sure that the hon. Member for Wrexham, whose care in these matters I respect, would not wish to mislead. The reference to direct-grant schools was not made because hon. Members argued that they should not be abolished by the Assembly. The reference was made to illustrate the serious things that the Assembly could do even without primary legislative power. It was made

to ensure that the standards which prescribe whether the Assembly, or even a Committee of the Assembly, could do this are examined carefully, We were not seeking to prevent them from doing it but saying that great care should be taken over the manner in which they could.

Mr. Ellis: I am grateful to the hon. Member for Cleveland and Whitby. He has put the matter more precisely, but that does not alter my argument. If the Welsh Assembly were to abolish direct-grant schools, it would do so as a fully elected, democratic constitutional body and it would be within its wisdom to do so. It would receive either the retribution or the cheering of the people at the next election as a result.
The great disadvantage is that which the hon. Member for Devizes mentioned. For a long time Wales has been a one-party country. The Labour Party has been dominant for many years. I believe that one-party government is bad, however good the party. That is why I should have liked to see some form of proportional representation. That would mean that decisions would be taken on an elected democratic basis and with the backing of a larger proportion of the people of Wales. The opposition would be proportional. At present the opposition in the form of various parties commands between 30 per cent. and 40 per cent. of the vote. That would be the proportion of opposition within the Assembly. Public debate would be sufficient to ensure a wise decision on that or any other issue.
We are dealing with the setting up of a political structure—a political institution. There are a number of ways of looking at political institutions. My hon. Friend the Member for West Lothian seems to take a static and very formal view. He seems to believe that one can write down precisely what the constitution will be. In the past we have prided ourselves on the fact that we have not had a written constitution and that that gives us a flexibility that other poor misbegotten and misguided countries do not possess. My hon. Friend wants to know whether the Assembly will meet on Tuesday or Thursday afternoons, and whether the Assemblymen will be paid £10 a week or £100 a week—

Mr. Dalyell: No.

Mr. Ellis: There are scores and scores of such questions that one can ask about an institution that is being created. But that approach misses the point. The point is not how the Assembly will do its work and the work that it will do. We need to spell out the overall functions and powers of the Assembly, and they are spelled out in the Bill. It is only necessary for the Assembly to be charged with the responsibility to control every detailed function. It is the Assembly's function to determine such minor details as how much the Members are to be paid and how long they are to sit.

The Second Deputy Chairman (Mr. Bryant Godman Irvine): Order. As I understand it, we are discussing the way in which the standing orders are to be set up, and whether they are approved by Parliament. We are not discussing the question of powers.

Mr. Ellis: I am making the point, Mr. Godman Irvine, that the standing orders must surely be determined within the body that they are supposed to control. For someone outside the Assembly to attempt to exercise a supervisory role seems to be completely misguided. If we were to supervise what the Assembly did, that would be a different matter. But the running of the Assembly itself and what the standing orders will provide is fundamentally a matter for the Assembly.
When the Assembly is created, it will be crucially important that relations between it and this Parliament and local government institutions in Wales should be happy. The same applies to the Scottish Assembly. That is vital for the well-being of the people of Wales. The relationship should be a free, easy and happy one. The Assembly must be able to devise its own standing orders, and it can do that only when it is established. No one else can perform that task in any meaningful sense. It would be disastrous for this House to reject a particular feature of the Assembly's standing orders. Imagine the political uproar in Wales if that were to happen. The whole arrangements would have got off to a disastrous start.

Mr. Andrew F. Bennett: I accept that it would be unfortunate for this House to impose a veto after the Assembly had

met and drawn up its standing orders. However, does my hon. Friend feel that it would be reasonable for people voting in the referendum to know, for example, whether the Assembly was to meet and conduct its proceedings in public, or whether it was going to hold some of them in private, excluding the Press and the public? Surely these are things that people should know when voting in the referendum.

Mr. Ellis: Certainly anyone voting in the referendum should have as much knowledge about the future as possible, but no one can say with certainty that the Assembly will do its work in a particular way. That would be aspiring to the perfect. We are in danger of rejecting the good on the ground that it is not perfect. It seems impossible that anyone could begin to say what the standing orders should provide and how the Assembly should work before the Assembly is created.
Certainly, it is not for this place to lay down standing orders for a political institution, for a structure, politics being a dynamic, growing, lively thing—certainly not the kind of static thing my hon. Friend the Member for West Lothian seems to think it is, so that we can ask questions such as what salary is to be paid and whether Members are to meet on Tuesday morning or Thursday afternoon. That is a complete misunderstanding of the nature of political business.

8.45 p.m.

Mr. Dalyell: My hon. Friend must not misrepresent questions that I have asked. It is really very simple. It is not about such questions as whether Members are to meet on Tuesdays afternoons or Thurs day mornings. The question is simply in relation to this clause, to which it is highly pertinent and relevant. Do we have in mind a group of full-time politicians serving in the Assembly or is it to be a part-time body? I feel I am entitled, the Bill having reached the stage, to ask the Front Bench whether this is to be a part-time or whole-time set-up? I see the right hon. Gentleman the Home Secretary has just joined us. If he thinks he has come in at the moment when I am—

The Second Deputy Chairman: Order. I heard enough of what was going on


before I took the Chair to appreciate that the hon. Gentleman is returning to ground that has already been dealt with.

Mr. Dalyell: The question was asked but not answered.

The Second Deputy Chairman: It appears not to have been in order.

Mr. Ellis: I shall give my hon. Friend the Member for West Lothian a fairly precise and explicit answer. This has nothing to do with standing orders as such. The answer is that Members will be as full-time or as part-time Members of the Assembly as hon. Members are of this House of Commons.

Sir A. Meyer: This has been a very interesting debate on whether this House should have power to oversee the standing orders of the Assembly. I confess to being in something of a quandary how to react to the amendment of my hon. Friend the Member for Cleveland and Whitby (Mr. Brittan) but there is a deep question which bothers me. I cannot see in this Bill that the Assembly has been given power to draw up its own standing orders. That is very clear from the Explanatory Memorandum, on page ii of which we read:
The Assembly is to make standing orders which must include provision for the disclosure of pecuniary interests.
That is fine but the Explanatory Memorandum is no part of the Bill. When we come to the Bill, Clause 16 says:
(1) The procedure of the Assembly shall be regulated by standing orders of the Assembly;
Nothing is said so far about who is to draw up the standing orders. Subsection (1) continues:
but the Secretary of State may give directions for regulating its procedure pending the making of standing orders.
Making by whom? As far as this Bill is concerned that could be by the Secretary of State. The clause goes on to say, rather amusingly:
The standing orders may include provision for preserving order in the proceedings of the Assembly …
which is a very fair comment on the kind of Assembly we may perhaps expect; but it seems to me that the Government have not made provision for the Assembly to draw up its own standing orders.

Sir Raymond Gower: I should like to dissent from my hon. Friend the Member for Flint, West (Sir A. Meyer) in that respect. It seems quite clear to me from Clause 16(1) that the procedure shall be regulated by the standing orders of the Assembly, but then there is something quite contrary to the usual procedure in that
… the Secretary of State may give directions for regulating its procedure …
It seems to me that there is a very strong implication that the procedure will be drawn up by the Assembly. That, I would think, is implicit in the wording, but I may be wrong. Perhaps the Minister can give us some official guidance on this. Like my hon. Friend, I am not very keen on this amendment. I feel that if an Assembly is set up along these lines it should have the power to regulate its own procedure. I do not think that that is going very far. It seems unreasonable to lay down a detailed kind of straitjacket. I have not heard enough from those who are putting forward the amendment to persuade me to support it. If I do not hear more reasons in favour of the amendment, I shall not vote for it.

Mr. Budgen: I am delighted to give my wholehearted and loyal support to the amendment moved so ably by my hon. Friend the Member for Cleveland and Whitby (Mr. Britain). He was right to say that it is an important amendment. It goes to the heart of our consideration of the Bill.
The hon. Member for West Lothian (Mr. Dalyell), in asking his highly pertinent and detailed questions, points again to the basic defect of the concept of devolution—the inherent instability that arises in any such proposition. The hon. Gentleman faced squarely the points approached with total inconsistency by the hon. Member for Wrexham (Mr. Ellis), who put forward two opposing propositions. The hon. Member said that he wanted the relationship between the Assembly and this House to be free and happy. He went on to say that the politics of the relationship would be dynamic, organic and lively.
The second proposition is correct because the Assembly will be for ever trying to grab powers. Sometimes it will


be grabbing them from its weaker brethren among the county and district councils in Wales and sometimes, puffed up with pride, it will be trying to take on the Westminster Parliament. Certainly there will be a dynamic, organic and lively relationship and that is inconsistent with a relationship that is free and happy.
If we are to have a satisfactory relationship between this House and the Assembly, it is vital to establish who is boss. The important points about the amendment is that it establishes from the start that this House has a vital supervisory role over the subordinate Assembly and makes clear that it is no more than a puffed up county council.

Mr. Charles Morrison: If my hon. Friend thinks it is right that we should have control over a subordinate Assembly, why, to use his own analogy, do we not have control over the standing orders of county councils?

Mr. Budgen: When county councils were set up, there was no dishonest subterfuge by which it was pretended that they were equal to the Westminster Parliament. They were subordinate and they knew themselves to be subordinate. The basic dishonesty in relation to the Assembly is that some people in Wales are being conned by the suggestion that they are getting something equivalent to a Welsh Parliament. We should tell them that they have been conned and that we want them to understand that the Westminster Parliament remains sovereign and supreme. We can demonstrate that sovereignty and supremacy by providing that, in the last resort, we can supervise the Assembly's standing orders.
Standing orders are the very meat of power and concern the practicalities of where the Assembly can extend its powers in what the hon. Member for Wrexham calls a dynamic, organic and lively way. Of course, it will be attacking the powers of local government as hard as it can.
But we must also remember—this is important to hon. Members who represent other parts of the United Kingdom, particularly parts not so far distant from the Principality—that the whole basis of the Assembly's powers is somewhat uncertain. However, Clauses 38 and 39

make it quite plain that there will be industrial and economic powers. There can be no doubt that the Assembly will be trying to distort the economy of the United Kingdom so as to attract to Wales industry and commercial activity that might otherwise go to other parts of the United Kingdom.
That is an area where this dynamic, organic and lively body will be trying to get more power to itself, an area where the House would do well to give itself the power to supervise the standing orders, to make sure that power-grabbing can be contained at the very beginning.

Mr. Nicholas Edwards: My hon. Friend should not be quite as anxious as he makes out. There is nothing fixed and final in the scope of the legislative powers that are being given to the Assembly. Under the Bill, certain existing statutes and certain parts of them are being transferred, but every time we pass an Act in future the House of Commons will then have to decide how far that measure applies to the Assembly. That will make for the kind of lively relationship that my hon. Friends describes, but that is not to suggest that the Bill completely takes away from the House the authority in relation to the Assembly.

Mr. Budgen: It is true that as each power is passed over there will have to be particular legislative powers passed through the House of Commons. I accept my right hon. Friend's point—

The Second Deputy Chairman: Perhaps the hon. Gentleman will also accept the point that has been made repeatedly by successive occupants of the Chair that we are dealing with standing orders, not powers.

Mr. Budgen: I want to put into the Bill a second line of defence, because if it be that the Welsh Assembly by its persistent blaming of the United Kingdom Parliament for all the ills of Wales, because no doubt all those ills will be in no way attributable to the Assembly but will all be considered to be the fault of the domination of the United Kingdom Parliament—

Mr. Wigley: Quite probably.

Mr. Budgen: The hon. Gentleman is no doubt preparing the great orations that


he will make a bout all the ills being everybody else's fault.
At least if there has to be another change in standing orders, that is another safeguard. I hope that the loyal members of the Tory Party will be voting in favour of the amendment in the belief that it preserves the sovereignty of the House of Commons, and that it most of all prevents the power of the Assembly extending itself so as to distort economic advantage towards Wales. In doing that, we shall certainly be defending the interests of the West Midlands.

Mr. Ioan Evans: I, too, have misgivings about the amendment, adding a fourth subsection to the clause, although one can understand the desire to know the standing orders determined by the Assembly.
There is a vagueness about the clause. Subsection 1 reads:
The procedure of the Assembly shall be regulated by standing orders of the Assembly".
We shall presumably give the Assembly powers to determine its standing orders, but the subsection continues to say
but the Secretary of State may give directions for regulating its procedure pending the making of standing orders.
That is a vague concept in the clause. Will the Secretary of State give directions? I think that the Committee is entitled at this stage to know what is in mind.
9.0 p.m.
Why should there be vagueness at this stage of the Bill? We are now debating in Committee the clause that relates to the forming of standing orders. The Committee is told that
the Secretary of State may give directions for regulating its procedure pending the making of standing orders.
I presume that something will have to be done about the ordering of proceedings until the Assembly sets up a standing orders committee or a working party to create a model for standing orders.
Clause 16 goes on to say:
The standing orders shall include provision for the election of a presiding officer from among the members of the Assembly and for his tenure of office.
It would appear that the only direction that we are giving to the Assembly, the only definite standing order that we are

saying that the Assembly must apply, is that the presiding officer must be from among the Members of the Assembly, and
for his tenure of office.
My hon. Friend the Member for Wrexham (Mr. Ellis) mentioned the point about why the matter could not be left to the Assembly. I do not know why the House of Commons should tell the Assembly that it must do it in that way. Before the subsection that the Conservative Party wants to put forward there is subsection (3), which states:
The standing orders may include provision for preserving order in the proceedings of the Assembly, including provision for excluding a member from such proceedings.
I should have thought that there should be no "may" about that. There must be something in standing orders that says that there should be some provision for preserving order in the proceedings. Why should we put in a Bill of this nature the word "may"? Many of us are asking, even if it should or should not be in the Bill, why put it in at all? The clause has been put together in a strange manner.
The Opposition amendment says:
The standing orders shall not have effect until they have been approved by a resolution of each House of Parliament.
Let us presume that the Assembly has a form of standing orders with which the House of Commons finds itself completely in disagreement. My hon. Friend the Member for Wrexham has said that the matter should be left entirely to the Assembly and that it is not for us to get involved. But there could be a form of standing orders which Members of the House of Commons might find objectionable.
I realise that we are in a unique situation. We have not done anything like this in Wales before. It has been a long time since Simon de Montfort summoned the first Parliament. It has taken a long time to get round to doing this sort of thing. It is not strange that we should not think of telling the Assembly what it standing orders should be, but at least of having a model form of standing orders which the Secretary of State could say somebody had looked at and would suggest to the Assembly to give it some guidance as to what should happen.
Although it has been stated in Committee that the matter will be left entirely


to the Assembly, if the Bill is implemented there are already some clauses that we have considered that will affect the standing orders. The House of Commons has reached its decision about the time of election, about elections, by-elections, disqualification from membership, expenses and powers. All those matters will affect standing orders. Those are issues which we have already determined. Matters such as the conduct of business, the first meeting, standing orders, pecuniary interest and the Executive Committee will affect standing orders.

Mr. Cledwyn Hughes: The majority of the points made by my hon. Friend would be applicable in the case of the Greater London Council—an authority with considerable powers, as my hon. Friend well knows, and with extensive, carefully worked out standing orders. Such standing orders never come before the House of Commons for approval. Can my hon. Friend give one reason or more why the standing orders of the Welsh Assembly should have to come here for approval, and presumably debate, when the standing orders of the GLC do not?

Mr. Evans: I did not say that the standing orders would necessarily have to come here. We in the House of Commons have Standing Orders amounting to about 118 pages with the index.
My right hon. Friend is quite correct. The GLC, district councils, community councils and county councils all have standing orders. All local authorities and most other bodies have them. I cannot understand why there is not some indication at this stage as to the type of standing orders on which the Assembly is to model itself. If my right hon. Friend says that the Assembly should look at the GLC's standing orders and that that should be the model, I take the point.

Mr. Cledwyn Hughes: With all respect, that is not the point. The point I was making is that the GLC has the power to draft and approve its own standing orders without going to the Secretary of State for the Environment for approval. Why is my hon. Friend now trying to argue that the Welsh Assembly in similar circumstances would have to take its standing orders all over the place, from Alaska to the Secretary of State for Wales, for approval?

Mr. Evans: I do not think that anyone has mentioned Alaska.

Mr. Hughes: If my hon. Friend thought that there was a point against Wales he would mention it.

Mr. Evans: That is an offensive remark. I know that it is getting late, but I am sure that my right hon. Friend does not want to be as offensive as that. It should be the people of Wales who decide this issue, as he knows, and he does not know whether the people of Wales want the Bill. Let us allow them to decide. We are in Committee. I have not supported the amendment. If my right hon. Friend had been listening to my speech, he would have realised that I did not accept the amendment, so he should withdraw that part of his remarks.

Mr. Hughes: I did not make that point.

Mr. Evans: We are now discussing the question of standing orders. I should like an interpretation of the clause when the Minister replies to the debate, and I hope that he will outline how the Government think the Welsh Assembly will go about setting up its standing orders and on what it will try to model them.

Mr. Hughes: Mr. Hughes rose—

Mr. Evans: My right hon. Friend was not in the Chamber earlier. Other questions have been raised, such as whether the Assembly Members are to be full-time or part-time Members. We should like an indication of what guidance the Assembly will get from the Secretary of State in framing its standing orders.

Mr. Hughes: Mr. Hughes rose—

The Second Deputy Chairman: Order. The point with which the hon. Member for Aberdare (Mr. Evans) was dealing will arise in the clause stand part debate. At present we are dealing with the amendment.

Mr. Evans: I should like to reply to my right hon. Friend.

Mr. Hughes: The point was not clear to me. It was entirely my fault, and for that I apologise to my hon. Friend.

Mr. Evans: I accept my right hon. Friend's apology. I know that he is


usually courteous in these matters and that he, like most of us on the Government side of the Committee, does not want to personalise the issue. There are differences between us, but what is needed is that through our discussion of the Bill the matter should be put clearly before the people of Wales without us getting involved in scoring personal points.
That is all that I wanted to say on this issue. I hope that this matter will be dealt with in the reply to the debate on the amendment and, presumably, in the clause stand part debate.

Mr. Geraint Morgan: In view of the lateness of the hour, my intervention will be very brief indeed. I intervene only in order to show that there is at least one Welsh Member on the Opposition side of the Committee who firmly agrees with the contributions made by my hon. Friends the Members for Buckingham (Mr. Benyon) and Devizes (Mr. Morrison).
As I understood it, the argument put forward by my hon. Friend the Member for Cleveland and Whitby (Mr. Brittan) presupposes all sorts of possible abuses of standing orders, but, frankly, I think that he was raising bogies. If he had his way, it would really be a case of keeping the Assembly on the apron strings of the House of Commons.
I agree entirely with what was said by my hon. Friend the Member for Devizes. If the Welsh people decide ultimately that they want an Assembly, the making of standing orders must be left to the good sense and fairness of the Members of the Assembly.

Mr. Charles Morrison: I must defend my hon. Friend the Member for Cleveland and Whitby (Mr. Brittan), because I believe that he is very well intentioned in his amendment, but the amendment would not be necessary if there were a sensible electoral system other than the first-past-the-post system.

Mr. Morgan: I promised to be brief and will not be distracted into dealing with other forms of election.
I think that the point was very properly put in a nutshell by the hon. Member for Wrexham (Mr. Ellis), when he said that standing orders must of necessity be a matter for the body concerned,

in this case the Welsh Assembly. The right hon. Member for Anglesey (Mr. Hughes) drew a very apt comparison between the lack of control by the House of Commons over the standing orders of the Greater London Council and what is now proposed by way of control over the standing orders of the Welsh Assembly. My hon. Friend the Member for Buckingham again put it very well when he said that this was an extraordinary way of setting about things.
If standing orders were referred back here and rejected, there would be a grave ground of conflict between the Assembly and the Westminster Government, and serious friction could develop. That is one of the things which those of us who are unenthusiastic about the creation of the Assembly have always feared. My hon. Friend the Member for Buckingham summed it up very well when he said that there is so much that can properly be criticised in the Bill that it is a pity we should be wasting time on this sort of amendment, which I regard as totally unnecessary and which many in Wales will find most objectionable.

Mr. Alec Jones: We have certainly had, in those immortal words, a very wide-ranging debate. We have ranged over salaries, Members' interests, the Welsh language, proportional representation, the powers of the Assembly and the relationship between it and this House.
I say to the hon. Member for Wolverhampton, South-West (Mr. Budgen), before he leaves the Chamber, that I do not believe that the sort of words he used are conducive to establishing a good and proper relationship between the House of Commons and the Assembly. "Who is boss?" is never, in my view, the best sort of expression to use between two bodies which have separate but important functions to carry out.
I certainly do not object to the fact that we had this wide-ranging debate, but it will ill become hon. Members if they later complain that they have had less time to discuss other major and important issues.

Mr. Benyon: That is unfair.

Mr. Jones: Of course it is, but it is equally unfair to complain when time has been used discussing various extraneous matters, and when the amendment


is specifically concerned not even with the content of the standing orders but basically with whether those standing orders need the approval of both Houses of Parliament. That is what the amendment is about, and I suggest that we have moved away from that somewhat in our discussions. Far from the guillotine having been our enemy this evening, we shall have been our own executioners in regard to many of the later debates which some hon. Members have wanted.
The hon. Member for Cleveland and Whitby (Mr. Brittan) began quite reasonably, saying that all he wanted was a reasonable degree of supervisory power. But then it appeared that what he really wanted was a veto of what was in the standing orders. Although I am a Welshman, my knowledge of English would not suggest that a veto can be described as "a reasonable degree of supervisory power." I felt that the hon. Gentleman was really asking for a complete and final say as to what should be in the standing orders. That may be what some Conservative Members want but it was not what I understood him to mean when he initially asked for a reasonable degree of supervisory power. Therefore, I was glad to hear that we had support from the hon. Members for Buckingham (Mr. Benyon), Devizes (Mr. Morrison), Denbigh (Mr. Morgan) and Barry (Sir R. Gower), who indicated that in their view this matter should be left to the Assembly.
9.15 p.m.
It is the Government's view that to give Parliament control over the Assembly's standing orders is neither practicable nor desirable. Our own Standing Orders are contained in a booklet of some 118 pages, and in my view it is nonsense to believe that the House of Commons could find adequate time to discuss its own Standing Orders and those of the Assembly. We change our Standing Orders frequently. It is nonsense to suggest that we could find time to deal with those changes and supervise all the changes in the Assembly's standing orders which obviously will be necessary as time goes on and the Assembly develops experience of running its own affairs.
We are talking of a responsible elected Assembly. If the House of Commons can give that Assembly all the functions

that we have just finished discussing and some others, and that Assembly receives the approval of the people of Wales in a referendum, it is the height of nonsense to suggest that the standing orders of such an Assembly should be subject to a veto of both Houses of Parliament. I am sure that hon. Members on both sides of the Committee would resent it greatly if anyone suggested that any body outside this Chamber should have a say in the Standing Orders under which we operate.
Clause 16 provides that there are to be standing orders, and subsection (1) provides that they shall be made by the Assembly, and I can tell my hon. Friend the Member for Aberdare (Mr. Evans) that certain of those standing orders have to be mandatory.

Sir A. Meyer: But it does not say anywhere in the text of the clause that they are to be made by the Assembly. That is the point that I was making.

Mr. Jones: I am advised that subsection (1) provides for that. However, I shall discuss the matter further and, if there is some fault in the wording, the Government naturally will seek to correct it.
But because we understand that certain functions will need standing orders, we have included a provision in subsection (2) dealing specifically with the election of the presiding officer and his tenure of office. In Clause 17, we have dealt with the declaration of pecuniary interests. In Clause 20, we provide for a mandatory standing order dealing with the authorisation of payments out of the Welsh Loans Fund. In Clause 22, we provide for the scrutiny of subordinate legislation. So in certain key areas we have ensured that the standing orders shall be mandatory and, until the Assembly is set up and draws up its own standing orders, there will be standing orders provided by my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State which will continue until the Assembly makes its own. Those interim standing orders will surely provide the sort of guidance for which hon. Members have asked.

Mr. Dalyell: Does not my hon. Friend agree that, whatever view one takes, it is relevant to ask in relation to pecuniary interests whether the Members are to be


full-time or part-time? One cannot sensibly discuss pecuniary interests without having a clear idea—

The Second Deputy Chairman: Order. The hon. Member for West Lothian (Mr. Dalyell) has returned to this matter on a number of occasions. However, it is not part of the amendment under discussion.

Mr. Dalyell: On a point of order, Mr. Godman Irvine. That is a judgment from the Chair. However, I think that it is reasonable and sensible to argue that one cannot make up one's mind about pecuniary interest—[HON. MEMBERS: "Standing orders."] Pecuniary interest is one of the matters that we are discussing, and a part-time Member of the Assembly whose bread and butter the Assembly is not should be subject to very different standards of declaration of pecuniary interest than a whole-time Assemblyman. So I return to my question—

The Second Deputy Chairman: On at least four occasions the Chair has explained to the hon. Gentleman that this is not what we are discussing.

Mr. Jones: I understand that that is not the point that we are discussing, but since my hon. Friend has specifically asked questions about salary he must be aware that four amendments are down to Clause 33. We shall then discuss this matter provided that we get there. At the rate at which we have made progress since 7 o'clock, we are not likely to get any further than the issue that we are now discussing because of the long meanderings that have taken place since then.
However, in reply to my hon. Friend I would say that whether Assembly Members are full time or part time will depend on the Members themselves. Just as the hours, days of the week and period of time which this Assembly sits is decided by this Assembly, so will that decision be made by the Welsh Assembly. Whether a Member is full time or part time will largely depend on that Member's own conscience. But I have sufficient faith that Assemblymen who are elected will work as long as necessary in order to ensure that Wales is adequately governed.

Mr. Dalyell: If my hon. Friend is right in what he says—I have no reason to suspect that he is not—then I for one hope that those Assemblymen will be

paid no less than Members of the House of Commons, because some of them will have to keep two homes going and will have the same kind of expenses as we have.

The Second Deputy Chairman: That may well be so, but it has nothing to do with Amendment No. 220.

Amendment negatived.

Clause 16 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 17

PECUNIARY INTERESTS

Mr. Andrew F. Bennett: I beg to move Amendment No. 80, in page 7, line 23, at end insert
and such disclosures of pecuniary interest shall be entered in a register, compiled in such a form as the standing orders shall provide, and deposited with the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council".

The Second Deputy Chairman: With this, we may take Amendment No. 81, in page 7, line 27, leave out "£500" and insert "£1,000".

Mr. Bennett: Perhaps I may turn first to Amendment No. 81. I have put this down as a probing amendment. I tabled a similar amendment on the Scotland Bill, although on that occasion the official Opposition tabled further amendments not only to raise the sum but also to impose disqualification for anyone in breach of this particular part of the standing orders.
During discussions on the Scotland Bill, the Minister suggested that the Government were having second thoughts about imposing a duty on the courts to supervise the standing orders of the Assembly. At that stage he suggested that the Government might alter the Scotland Bill at some later stage. Before I develop my points further, will the Minister say whether the Government are having second thoughts about the Wales Bill? Do they consider that it is appropriate for the courts to supervise the standing orders of the Assembly? Will my hon. Friend enlighten me on that point?

Mr. Alec Jones: In the event the Government decided not to bring forward a proposal such as my hon. Friend has mentioned but to retain the penalty of


£500 because, on balance, we believe it to be at an appropriate level.

Mr. Bennett: I thank my hon. Friend for that clarification. I therefore take it that it is the Government's intention to set up this rather odd situation of the courts having to supervise the standing orders and also to impose a fine, or the possibility of a fine, of only £500. If one considers the possibilities for people to behave corruptly, that is a very small fine indeed. If the Government are to retain this proposal they ought to consider making the penalty rather more severe by accepting the amendment that I have tabled. The Government should consider on Report the possibility of disqualifying someone from continuing as a Member of the Assembly if he has been found guilty of that sort of offence.
In Amendment No. 80, I have suggested that we should have had the standing orders set out before the referendum and certainly before the election takes place. I accept that the Government are reluctant to do that, but certainly on the question of pecuniary interests the Government should make absolutely clear the kind of standing orders that they would require.
We have heard suggestions that in local government it is left to local government bodies to provide their own standing orders. On matters of open access, information and declaration of interests, local government has been particularly bad at making standing orders covering the rights of the Press and public to hear proceedings and at declaring interests. In this area we should have something tied down in standing orders.
The Bill uses the word "shall" in relation to standing orders dealing with pecuniary interests. However, I believe that it should be spelled out much more clearly. We have seen the difficulty of imposing this sort of standing order on a body. We had a long debate on Members' interests in this House. We amended the Standing Orders and then found that because one hon. Member refused to comply with that, he brought the whole question of a register of Members' interests into disrepute. Because of the political composition of the House of Commons, it is reluctant to deal with the problem.
Do we approach the problem in a dif-

ferent way and set it all down in the statute? Plainly this would have been more satisfactory. This problem of a declaration of Members' interests in the Welsh Assembly should be treated in this way. Ideally, Members should have to make a declaration of interest before they are elected. We should require that each candidate make a declaration so that it is quite clear what interests people are representing and what financial interests they have. It is unsatisfactory for the Assembly itself to impose regulations.
I hope that the Minister will look at this carefully and make it clear that the Government expect the Welsh Assembly to make sure that people declare their financial interests before they speak and that there is a register of Members' interests. The Government should say that this will be a statutory register, and it will not be permissible for Members of the Assembly to waive this requirement. I hope that the Government will look at this sympathetically.

Mr. Brittan: I intervene briefly to take up the points made by the hon. Member for Stockport, North (Mr. Bennett).
I have considerable reservations, as do many of my hon. Friends, about Amendment No. 80 in view of the experience of the House of Commons with the Register of Interests. It does seem a little wry that we should be debating a matter of this kind when we cannot deal with it satisfactorily in the House of Commons. We should resolve our own problems first—if they are capable of resolution—before we tell anyone else what to do about a register of interests.
I have a considerable degree of sympathy with the thinking behind Amendment No. 81. It is important that there should be as great a degree of protection that is possible against improper financial activities in the Welsh Assembly, or in any other deliberative or legislative body or Executive set up by this House.
9.30 p.m.
I note, in passing, that in the Scotland and Wales Bill the fine was set at £400. However, by the time we reached this Bill the fine had increased to £500. Whether that is an adequate reflection of the degree of inflation experienced by the Labour Government, I leave for others to consider and to probe.
The principle that there should be a proper sanction against financial impropriety is important. I do not wish to tread on delicate areas, but it is right to say that if over a period of time a body is dominated by one party, there is always the risk of financial impropriety. That risk is less likely to occur where there is hotly contested balance between the parties. That is nothing special to Wales, although it has received a great deal of notoriety because of the trials which have taken place in the last few years in regard to the activities of some members of Welsh local authorities. Since I come from a North-Eastern constituency, I assure those hon. Members on both sides of the political fence who represent Welsh constituencies that the North-East is by no means immune from the same problem. The problem is not a function of a particular part of the country, but illustrates the dangers that can arise if there is one-party government.
Clause 17 in its unamended form is no guarantee against the kind of deplorable activities about which some of us read in the Daily Telegraph on 28th February. Amendment No. 80 is not a protection against such events occurring because corruption will occur, and often occurs, where there is one-party government. Nevertheless, it is right that there should be as high a degree of protection as can be obtained by means of statute, and the fine is the only sanction that is available to us.
I believe that many Conservative Members will feel sympathetic towards Amendment No. 81 since it increases the sanction that is available to prevent improprieties from occurring.

Mr. Alec Jones: My hon. Friend the Member for Stockport, North (Mr. Bennett) introduced an identical amendment in Committee on the Scotland Bill. I understand that he is concerned to see a common United Kingdom standard in declaring pecuniary interests and wants the Bill to provide clearer guidelines. But that is not so easy to achieve when one realises the vast variety of bodies—whether it be this Chamber, an Assembly, county council or district council or the whole gamut of semi-public bodies—that exist throughout the country.
What we have done in Clause 17 is to say that the disclosure of pecuniary interests shall be mandatory. The Assembly's

standing orders will require Members to disclose their pecuniary interests, and the provision goes on to say that contravention of the standing orders would carry a criminal offence and a fine of up to a maximum of £500.
The question is how the disclosure of pecuniary interest is to be carried out. It is true that the Assembly could follow the pattern in the Local Government Act 1972, in which disclosures are recorded in a book that is kept specifically for the purpose. When we take into account that that provision is regarded as sufficient for a council the size of the GLC, which is responsible to 10 million or 12 million people and for many millions of pounds, it is somewhat difficult convincingly to argue that it is necessary to go much beyond that when deciding how the Assembly should approach the matter.
The Assembly could follow the example of the House of Commons, which has a Register of Members' Interests. It is maintained by a registrar, who is an Officer of the House, and overseen by a Select Committee. However, I suspect that some hon. Members, including my hon. Friend the Member for Stockport, North, would not regard our register as being perfect by any means. It seems that we have been somewhat reluctant to do much about that. That is a failure of the House of Commons.
If we take into account the variety of worries that have been raised and the many examples that have been put before the Committee, it seems that this is a matter that should be left to the Assembly, given the instruction in Clause 17 that the standing orders must require Members to declare their interests and the criminal offence nature of the fine. We can argue about the size of the fine, but I believe that we have gone as far as is reasonable in laying down instructions to the Assembly as to how the issue should be handled.

Mr. Andrew F. Bennett: My hon. Friend has suggested that I find the present system operating in this place unsatisfactory and that it is a failure of the House of Commons. Does not that illustrate the danger of leaving the determination of standing orders to the Assembly? It may or may not be convenient for it to deal with this matter. If standing orders were laid down in the Act, it would not be for the Assembly


to decide on its standing orders and, presumably, to enforce them. We are in difficulty with our Members' interests because it has been left to us to impose sanctions upon ourselves and to carry them out.

Mr. Jones: I should have greater sympathy with that point of view if what we were discussing was an attempt to impose some similar strict regime as we are seeking or would seek, to impose on the Assembly, or any other body. If we were taking that course, I should be far more sympathetic. However, as we are talking only about the Assembly, I take the view that we have probably gone about as far as we can go at this stage.
As for the level of the fine, I accept that the level of any fine, like all numbers, is often a balance of judgment. It happens that £400 was included in the Scotland and Wales Bill. When the Criminal Law Act 1977 came on the scene, which revised fines for summary offences, it became necessary to revise the fine and to take into account that Act. The fine in the Local Government Act 1972 for nondisclosure remains at £200, but as we were taking into account the Criminal Law Act when revising the fine it seemed that the £400 fine should be brought to some point on the scale and that £500 was probably about the right figure.
The fine is not a small sum. If someone were to ask me to prove that £500 was absolutely the correct figure, in all honesty I must say that I should find it extremely difficult to do so. I should probably try to talk the matter out. I believe it right that we should have a mandatory standing order dealing with this matter, but at this stage I believe that it should be left to the Assembly. Without going to the gallows on the issue, I believe that the fine of £500 is just about right.
For these reasons I invite my hon. Friend to withdraw the amendment.

Mr. Dalyell: I am beginning to wonder precisely what the Assembly will spend its time doing. It will have a fruitful time discussing its own standing orders, freedom of information, and its own this, that and the other. If the Scottish Assembly has problems finding enough for its Members to do and if the Welsh Assembly is to be full time and to operate along the

lines of this Parliament without legislative and economic powers, what on earth will it find to fill in its time for 37 weeks of the year without discussing its own standing orders?

Amendment negatived.

Clause 17 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 18

SUBJECT COMMITTEES

Sir David Renton: I beg to move Amendment No. 177, in page 7, leave out lines 31 to 36 and insert—
'(1) The Assembly may appoint committees for the discharge of any of its functions.'.

The First Deputy Chairman (Sir Myer Galpern): With this it will be convenient to take the following amendments:

No. 178, in page 8, line 6, leave out
'by the leader of the committee or'.

No. 179, in page 8, line 13, leave out from 'chairman' to end of line 14.

No. 180, in page 8, line 14, at end add—
'(4) Any such committee or sub-committee may authorise an officer or officers of the Assembly to take such action as may be necessary for the discharge of any of the Assembly's functions which the committee or sub-committee has been appointed to discharge.'.

No. 181, in Clause 19, page 8, line 17, leave out 'leaders' and insert 'chairmen'.

No. 182, in Clause 19, page 8, line 20, leave out from 'Committee' to the end of line 25.

No. 145, in Clause 19, page 8, line 16, leave out from 'Committee' to 'and' in line 19.

No. 144, in Clause 19, page 8, leave out line 21.

Sir D. Renton: It would seem to be convenient to discuss the next seven amendments, although there are three separate issues raised. I shall begin with only two of those issues, leaving it to my hon. Friends on the Opposition Front Bench to deal with the other issue.
Amendment No. 177 proposes to leave out subsection (1) as it stands. Before going any further, I should mention that Clause 18, according to the side notes and its contents, would seem to oblige the


Assembly to appoint a wide range of subject committees relating to all the powers conferred by Clauses 10, 11 and 12. Of course, Clause 18 provides for other things besides those, as I shall try to explain.
If there are to be subject committees on all the powers conferred on the Assembly, there will be such an enormous range of sub-committees that even an Assembly of 100 Members would not find enough Members to man them satisfactorily to study all the subjects to be considered.

Mr. Dalyell: I wonder whether it would be in order to point out that on this matter of vital importance to Wales the only hon. Members present on the Labour Back Benches are the hon. Member for Carlisle (Mr. Lewis), who admittedly is of Welsh extraction, and myself, who thinks that the whole proposition is preposterous. That demonstrates the enthusiasm there is for this Bill.

Sir D. Renton: I am grateful to the hon. Member for West Lothian (Mr. Dalyell) for pointing out that fact. It is rather shameful. We are moving constructive amendments which seek to improve the Bill. They concern matters which deeply affect the future of Wales, especially existing local authorities. Yet we find the most elaborate provisions for imposing this new Assembly upon Wales These provisions overlap the responsibilities not only of the Secretary of State but of the local authorities. It seems that we are to have complete duplication of the committees of the local authorities. That is not all. If we were merely to have the Assembly, so to speak, matching the committees of the local authorities, that might be fair and sensible. But under Clause 18 as drafted, with the cross references which t contains to other parts of the Bill, the multiplicity of committees will be astonishing.
9.45 p.m.
References have been made to the Committee not being able properly to discuss Schedule 2. Under the heading "Local Government" there is an enormous number of references to the Local Government Act 1972 and to other provisions affecting local government. Part II of the Schedule which is headed

"Local Matters" deals with the Burial Acts, fairs, cinematographs, theatrical employers registration, airport shops and food and drugs. It deals with the Betting, Gaming and Lotteries Act, the Licensing Act, the Theatres Act and even the Mines and Quarries (Tips) Act. I have mentioned only about half of them. Which of the possible subject committees relating to powers conferred on the Assembly would deal with this extraordinary variety of matters? I have mentioned nine or ten different subjects. The whole thing is too ridiculous for words.
There is a part dealing with education. For once that is plain enough. The Assembly will have an education committee, as do local authorities. The next part of the schedule is headed
Landlord and Tenant and Housing".
There is a variety of subjects to be considered under that heading. Some of them bear upon agriculture. The Rent (Agriculture) Act is listed. Will that come under the housing committee, the landlord and tenant committee or what?
The next heading is "Fire Services". That is another straightforward matter. But then there is "Health and Social Services" which covers three pages of statutory references. I shall not weary the Committee with them.
The next part is headed "Pollution" and the next "Planning and Land Use". There is a tremendous section there which covers not only planning matters in the way in which we normally consider them but the safety of sports grounds, mobile homes, harbours, the Gas Act, the Commons Registration Act, and the Inclosure Acts. Fancy, we are still having to deal with that! One wonders which of the committees of the new Assembly will deal with the multiplicity of subjects which are given the generic description "Planning and Land Use".

Mr. Hooson: I share the doubts about a committee structure in the Assembly, but was it not recommended by the Kilbrandon Commission of which the hon. and learned Member for Huntingdonshire (Sir D. Renton) was a member? Did he dissent from that recommendation?

Sir D. Renton.: The hon. and learned Member is falling into the error perpetrated by 100,000 people at least. I should have thought that 100,000 people talk of the Kilbrandon Commission as though it was of one mind. He knows that we split four ways in our recommendations affecting Wales and four ways in our recommendations affecting Scotland.
I did not want more than a consultative Assembly for Wales, and to the extent that the hon. and learned Member is right in saying that some members of the Commission wanted an Assembly with some executive powers—others wanted it to have legislative powers—I did not agree with them. I therefore decline to answer for them. They must answer for themselves. In defence of them all, which ever way they split, let me remind the Committee that none of the members of the Kilbrandon Commission put forward the fantastic scheme proposed in the Bill.

Mr. Gerry Fowler (The Wrekin): Does the right hon. and learned Gentleman recognise that it is widely accepted in the House that the Kilbrandon Commission produced the most remarkable do-it-yourself report in history, and that it ill becomes any member of that Commission to criticise a Government who try to make sense of the mess that the Commission left? After all, at the end of the day the Commission left us roughly where we started. Does the right hon. and learned Gentleman accept that?

Sir D. Renton: Again, I must appeal to the hon. Member's sense of fairness. I seek refuge once more in the fact that two of the other members of the Commission and I put forward a proposal which would have enabled Welsh matters to be discussed in Wales without all the palaver of an elaborate new tier of government, because that is what it is, and no amount of talk by the Secretary of State or anyone else can get away from that.
I must press on. Why I should have to go on explaining away opinions with which I do not agree, I do not know. It is something that I as a parliamentarian find strange.
Let me now deal with the other headings. They include "Development", "Water and Land Drainage", "Freshwater Fisheries", "Countryside", "Forestry", "Ancient Monuments and

Historic Buildings", "Tourism", "Transport", "Road Traffic"—to the extent that they are separate. I do not see why they should be so regarded. Then we come to "Registration Services", and so on. In other parts of the Bill we find other subjects which would have to be the responsibility of specially appointed subject committees.

Mr. Timothy Raison: Does the scheme permit the setting up of an additional vehicle registration centre at Swansea? If so, that would be the ultimate in over-government.

Sir D. Renton: I agree that that would be the ultimate in over-government. The registration services that are mentioned here, however, appeal to me very much. One of them is the Population (Statistics) Act 1960. We need population statistics. There are also the Marriages Validity (Provisional Orders) Acts of 1905 and 1924. The provision on registration deals with matters such as that rather than the registration of vehicles.
Then, of course, there are the various matters which are to be the subject of concurrent responsibility with the Secretary of State, including the Community Land Act 1975. We must bear in mind the possibility that some powers mentioned in Schedule 4 are exercisable only with the consent of a Minister of the Crown. But if the Assembly is to have a committee covering each of its functions, it must also have committees covering those potential functions, because their functions can be exercised, although only with the consent of a Minister of the Crown; so by insisting that there shall be the subject committees related to all powers conferred on the Assembly by those sections, and of course the schedules they invoke, and such other functions, if any, as the Assembly may determine, it is difficult to imagine how many committees there might be.
I feel, as do my hon. Friends who support me on this—and I trust that I might perhaps have the support of my Front Bench on these amendments—that it would be so much simpler and more courteous to the Assembly, and more reasonable, and would give them a better start, if we have the very simple provision contained in the amendment I am moving, No. 171, which is to leave out subsection (1) altogether, with all its palaver and


simply say—and I am staggered at the simplicity of my own words—
The Assembly may appoint committees for the discharge of any of its functions".
That is all. The provision is "may" and the Assembly is not obliged to do it for every function, and it is not necessarily related to each subject or anything like that.
If I may make a rather general comment which applies to all legislation, if we want it to be good legislation—and I say this in deep humility but not without some experience—we ought to avoid unnecessary detail if we can possibly do so. When we are dealing with human rights, the rights of the individual, police powers or powers of inspection or entering people's homes, it is right that we should spell these things out so that Parliament can scrutinise them; but when we are merely creating a new public body we can sometimes go into too much detail, and I believe that the Government went into too much detail on subsection (1). Therefore, the simpler form would be better.
I come to Amendments Nos. 178, 179, 180, 181 and 182. They are not quite consecutive on the Order Paper because some amendments moved by the Front Bench come between them, but Amendments Nos. 178 to 182 inclusive, numerically in sequence, deal with quite a separate matter from that which I have mentioned. By the way, I must apologise to the Committee for my imperfect drafting of Amendment No. 182. It was intended merely to be a consequential amendment and I have not got it quite right, but it is something that can easily be adjusted.
May I deal with the substance of the matter? For reasons which, as far as I know, have never yet been explained in any White Paper or speech from the Government Front Bench, the Government are taking it upon themselves to use the word "leader" as a new term of art in a way in which, so far as I know, it has never before been used in our constitution. We talk about the Leader of the House of Commons but, as far as I know, that is not a statutory term at all.

Mr. David Crouch: It is not an exact term.

Sir D. Renton: That could be said but we all know who the Leader of the House is. He represents a Welsh constituency. We know that although the Leader of the House is a parliamentary party manager of the Government of the day, he is expected to help the House as a whole and is enjoined to pay special regard to the views of minority parties and so on. He does not always do that, but it is hoped that he will.
10.0 p.m.
The way that "leader" is used in the Bill is not analogous to the leadership of the House. The only other way that I know of "leader" being used in public life is when we talk of the Leader of the Greater London Council, of the Huntingdon District Council or the Cambridgeshire County Council. These people are not normally chairmen of committees and they do not have the same responsibility to the council as a whole as the Leader of the House is supposed to have to the House of Commons. They are essentially leaders of the majority party on the council and, because a council cannot operate without a majority, they are called, for convenience, leaders of the council.
In the Bill, the word "leader" is used in another sense. Clause 18(2)(b) says:
where any committee appointed under this section is charged with the exercise of any powers it may arrange for all or any of them to be exercised by the leader of the committee".
That is the first mention of the leader. At that point, we do not know what is meant by the leader of a committee. We have to read on. The paragraph goes on to say that, alternatively, the powers may be exercised by a sub-committee. It seems that a sub-committee has the same powers as the leader of a committee.
Subsection (3) says:
the Assembly shall name one of the members of each such committee as its chairman and another as leader of the committee, and the leader of a committee shall be known as its executive member.
Maybe I am too simple-minded, but to have to have such a complicated arrangement imposed on an Assembly which will have a hard enough job anyway to get over its teething troubles seems not only unnecessary, but unkind.

Mr. Temple-Morris: As we have heard from the Government that the Assembly should decide its own standing orders.


does my right hon. and learned Friend not agree that the same applies in regard to this amendment and that all this verbose nonsense is completely unnecessary?

Sir D. Renton: I am exceedingly grateful to my hon. Friend. I had worked out a number of arguments in my mind, but that important argument had not occurred to me. It will enable me to bring my remarks to an end fairly soon. It is such an overriding factor that what I was going to say can be shortened.
Assembly committees will have a chairman and a leader. Surely it would be better to have simply a chairman and no leader. Why is every committee to have both a chairman and a leader? Will the leader be the party manager type or the Leader of the House type? Will this follow the precedent of local councils which have this well-established practice or is it a feeble attempt by the Government to break away from that practice?
That is the sort of thing we need to know simply to understand the clause. What is the policy behind it? We have tabled the amendments to try to have the matter explained to us, first, and then I have made my own poor, inadequate attempt to draft amendments which would carry out what is intended.
After what I have said about not going into too much detail in legislation, someone may try to throw it in my face that that is just what I am trying to do in Amendment No. 180. But that is necessary in order to clarify the committee's position and to simplify it. Those in the outside world dealing with the Assembly need to know who has the authority to act and negotiate on its behalf. The subsection that would be added by Amendment No. 180 makes that clear. It says:
(4) Any such committee or sub-committee may authorise an officer or officers of the Assembly to take such action as may be necessary for the discharge of any of the Assembly's functions which the committee or sub-committee has been appointed to discharge.
That is simplicity, clarification and well worth while.
I am grateful to this Committee and to you, Sir Myer, for listening to me at such length. I hope that I have made the case clear.

Mr. Dalyell: As the evening has worn on I have been conscious of taking part in

the biggest fiasco that I can remember in 15 years as a Member of Parliament. It even surpasses the Scotland Bill. Never on any subject has one seen such an absence of conviction all round the Committee.

Mr. Hooson: Surely the hon. Gentleman remembers the European Assembly Bill, when there was a green desert on his side of the Committee and very few hon. Members were interested.

Mr. Dalyell: At least on that Bill there was conviction in quite a section of my party. Seventy or 80 Members, of whom I happened to be one, really believed in it, and on the Opposition Benches there was a great deal of conviction. On this occasion, as far as I can make out, there is no conviction. Even the hon. and learned Gentleman wants something totally different from this, and those in Plaid Cymru who argue for a "Yes" vote want something totally different. Therefore, the argument for the "Yes" vote is a false description of the goods. It is a prospectus that is not what it says it is, in Wales as in Scotland.
I shall not take up time except to ask the question that I first asked 37 long days ago in all these discussions. Is my hon. Friend the Member for Flint, East (Mr. Jones), who deserves a medal for good attendance and is sitting on the Front Bench now, to be concerned about forestry in the New Forest and not in East Flint? Is the hon. Member for Flint, West (Sir A. Meyer), who is temporarily absent, to be concerned with the water in Wolverhampton but not with the water in West Flint? Is my hon. Friend the Member for Aberdare (Mr. Evans) to be concerned about ancient monuments in Alnwick but not with ancient monuments in Aberdare? Is the Secretary of State to be interested in transport on Tyneside but not transport at Port Talbot? That seems to me to be a situation that cannot conceivably endure. My hon. Friend the Member for Pontypool (Mr. Abse) is doubtless concerned with pollution in Peterborough but not pollution in Pontypool.
Then we get to altogether bigger fish, education. Is my right hon. Friend the Member for Ebbw Vale (Mr. Foot) to be able to vote money and be concerned with education in Exeter but not with education in Ebbw Vale?

Mr. Cledwyn Hughes: It is a courageous thing to raise what is called the West Lothian question in a debate on the Wales Bill. The answer to my hon. Friend's question is that certainly everybody will be concerned with all those matters, because the voting of the moneys will be in the House of Commons and the legislation on all these subjects will be in the House of Commons.

Mr. Dalyell: I take issue with my right hon. Friend, who is a former chairman of the Parliamentary Labour Party. I know how expert he is. But there are two interpretations of the matter. If my hon. Friend were right, this would put the Welsh MPs and Scots MPs in a very dangerous position, because they would be seen to have one function above all others, namely, to get the maximum amount of lolly out of the parsimonious English Treasury.
I do not think that Welsh Ministers of great pre-eminence, of whom my right hon. Friend was one in a former Cabinet, exactly saw their role in that light. I wonder what the shade of Aneurin Bevan would have to say about that. Of all the things that Aneurin Bevan thought of himself, somehow I do not think that he thought of himself as a venal Welshman trying to get as much as he could for Wales from a United Kingdom Government. I do not want to be pompous or diffident about it. We shall not call it the West Lothian question. Let us call it, for the sake of courtesy, the Cardiff, South-East question, because I think the question goes directly to the Prime Minister. How long can a Prime Minister, or anybody else representing Cardiff, South-East—

The First Deputy Chairman: Order. I am surprised that any hon. Member, realising that a guillotine is due to fall at 11 o'clock, should indulge in material which is wholly irrelevant, which we have

heard for hours on end and which has prevented hon. Members from taking part in discussing important amendments. I see nothing of any relevance in that which is now being said by the hon. Member for West Lothian (Mr. Dalyell).

Mr. Dalyell: Whatever else is said about it, it is not irrelevant. It goes to the heart of the matter. As I sit down I simply put this question, because it has not been answered. How long can a situation endure in which our Prime Minister, or anybody else representing his constituency, can vote, for example—to be alliterative—on the Community Land Act in the constituency of the right hon. Member for Cambridgeshire (Mr. Pym) but not in his own city of Cardiff?

The Secretary of State for Wales (Mr. John Morris): My hon. Friend must compare the position with the Scotland Bill. The very Act which he has now quoted, if introduced in a post-Assembly period, would affect my right hon. Friend's constituency, be it in Cardiff or any other part of the world, in exactly the same way as it would affect parts of England. On this matter my hon. Friend has completely misunderstood the Bill.

Mr. Dalyell: I do not think I am wrong about this, because I have read the Bill very carefully and I have asked lawyers about this point. At first, I took it that the West Lothian question, so called, was irrelevant to the Wales Bill. I took legal advice about this and I gathered that in fact the issue is more complicated than that and that a great element of the West Lothian question applies to this Bill.

Mr. Gerry Fowler: On a point of order, Sir Myer.

The First Deputy Chairman: The hon. Member for West Lothian (Mr. Dalyell) has finished his speech.

10.15 p.m.

Mr. Nicholas Edwards: I do not want to pursue that point because I would not want to trespass on your good temper, Sir Myer, at this hour of the evening, nor in any way do I want to cut out from the debate anyone who wishes to take part—rather the reverse. I want to broaden out the issues a little beyond the point at which my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Huntingdonshire (Sir D. Renton) left them. He dealt with the amendments in his name, and I want to refer to those amendments and to Amendments Nos. 144 and 145, in my name and the names of my right hon. and hon. Friends, which deal with the question of the Executive Committee and the particular structure—indeed, I might say the peculiar structure—imposed by the Government in the clause.
This group of amendments brings us to an examination of the committee structure that is supposed to provide us with all the advantages of both the local government and the Cabinet systems of administration.
In the words of a document which was approved by the executive committee of the Labour Party in Wales in 1975, and which drew attention to the advantages and disadvantages of both systems,
We would therefore seek a system which would be a hybrid between the Westminster and the local government patterns, and which in our view would combine the strong points of the two.
But, in my judgment, that is not what has happened in practice. With that unerring sense of political ineptitude that characterises everything they have done in connection with this Bill, the Government have in reality succeeded in combining the worst parts of the two systems in a way which will make the structure unstable, will disguise where political responsibility lies, and will encourage the development of the caucus system of majority party control, which in South Wales has too often in the past proved a synonym for all that is worst in local government.
It is not surprising that the hon. and learned Member for Montgomery (Mr. Hooson)—I am glad to see him in his place—a keen supporter of devolution in general, should have cried out so

strongly in our debate on 15th January 1976
if we are to have an Assembly, for heaven's sake let us have it based on a parliamentary rather than a committee system. Let us have it open, public and esteemed, not following the model of the county councils.
When dealing with the details a little further on, the hon. and learned Member quite rightly observed:
What does that mean in practical terms in Wales? It means delegating the power to the party boss on that committee."—[Official Report, 15th January 1976; Vol. 903, cc. 656–57.]
This is a central feature of what we have to consider now. I have not always agreed with the hon. and learned Member, but on this occasion our judgment and our experience of the precedents has led us to identical conclusions. I hope that the hon. and learned Member will join us in supporting a series of amendments that will start the job of dismantling the structure. I freely concede that this series of amendments does not necessarily take us to the point to which the hon. and learned Member would want to go. I shall have a little more to say on that matter later.
Ministers may plead—indeed, it has already been pointed out—that in the Kilbrandon Commission's Report there is some support for what the Government are proposing, though as my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Huntingdonshire so forcefully and rightly observed, this was the recommendation of only some of the commissioners, and there is nothing sacred in any case, as has been suggested from the Labour Benches, about what the Commission proposed. The commissioners saw their report as a basis for further debate. But in any case, the Government have made a number of very significant changes from what the commissioners proposed. The commissioners proposed that it would be the chairman of the functional committees that would form the Executive. There was no talk about the leader in the commissioners' report.
The Government propose a new creature, the leader, while the chairman is apparently to be an impartial figure. There seems to me to be an unwarranted confusion, and I do not believe that the implications have been very thoroughly thought through. It is one thing to be an


impartial chairman of a debate, as you are, Sir Myer. It is quite another to attempt the task of chairing impartially a functional committee in which there is a strong politically oriented leader. Either the chairman will come from the majority party, in which case his impartiality may not be all that obvious, or he will come from a minority party, in which case there will be a weakening of what is already bound to be a small and fragmented representation in the committee as a whole. There seems to be nothing to gain from this particular variation other than confusion and a general blurring of responsibility.
The second variation is more serious. In paragraph 899 of their report, the commissioners made it quite plain that the Executive Committee would not have functions delegated to it by the other committees. It was specific on that point. This Executive Committee was to provide for the discussion and co-ordination of policies over the whole field of regional government. But even in that limited sense, the commissioners recognise that it would, in effect, be a regional cabinet of members of the majority party. The Bill, on the other hand specifically states that the Assembly may charge any of its committees—and that includes the Executive Committee—with the exercise of its powers, and further, that any committee may delegate its powers to its leader, that is to say, to the party boss, to the member of the Executive Committee.
It does not need an enormous amount of imagination for us to recognise that that is exactly what the majority party will do—see that the powers are delegated to the so-called leaders, the party bosses, the Ministers, for that is what they will be, to the Cabinet, for that is what it will be, and to the party caucus, for that is what it will be, as well.
There is no requirement in the Bill that the minority parties need to be represented in this key Executive Committee. They may be, it is true, but there is no requirement, and in practice I think it clear that they will not be. One does not facilitate Cabinet government—and Cabinet government, though disguised, is what we are to have—by inviting into it the Opposition when there is no obligation on one to do so. Where would the so-called advantages be?
The Labour Party document, in referring to a Cabinet system, mentions the inadequacy of parliamentary control over the Government, and goes on to refer to
the ineffectiveness of back bench Members, the exclusion of the opposition—and back bench government supporters—from access to civil servants. A committee system, in contrast, would give better opportunity for minority parties and back bench Members of the majority party to participate in decision making.
That may be the idea in theory, but the only thing that would survive under the system proposed in the Bill would be the access to civil servants. But, with authority delegated to the party bosses, where would be parliamentary control, and where would be the effective intervention by Back Benchers and by the Opposition?
The tragedy is that the whole thing is a charade or, worse than a charade, an elaborate disguise. Power would lie with the caucus but responsibility would be shared by the committee as a whole and by the unfortunate minority parties represented in it. Credit or blame would fall on all Back Benchers, Opposition and Government, as collective members of the Assembly and its committees, while all the time there would be a Cabinet Government in operation. Clear personal and collective responsibility, which is one of the great advantages of the Cabinet system, would not exist.
Even at its best and without the added function to which I have referred, the local government system has its drawbacks. It is true that there is a general involvement by members. But, as the Labour Party paper acknowledged, it is accompanied by delay, confusion and ineffectiveness, and too often that means that administration and power are taken over by paid officers. We are all aware that this happens in many local authorities. The elected members become no more than a sort of democratic screen for the real decision takers.
We also know that, because people tend to think collectively in terms of the council rather than in terms of the political leaders or the political parties within the council, there is too often a lack of response from the public to what is done. Much less than at national level people, blame or praise the majority. There is instead a generally rather hostile reaction to local government affairs, and this leads at least in part to the lack of enthusiasm


displayed at local government elections and also to the frequency with which so many people turn to their Members of Parliament rather than to their local councillors when they have matters which concern them.
Despite those faults, however, the local government system has some advantages, especially if we believe that we have too much polarisation of political attitudes and too much party strife. I suppose that there is also something to be said for a system which cushions arbitrary executive power. So that is one direction in which we could move and in which the House of Commons might decide that it would be an advantage to go, and it is in fact the direction in which the amendments direct us.
I find it indefensible so to adapt this system that there is a potential for arbitrary Executive power, a system which in reality places decisions effectively and completely in the hands of the leaders of the majority party and which produces what is in effect an Executive in that there is a Cabinet and a Prime Minister and the whole thing is wrapped up in cotton wool and discussed behind this confusion of committees, thereby ensuring that the general public do not know who is responsible.
Therefore, the alternative to a local government system is not this murky morass but a move in the other direction towards a Cabinet structure which establishes clearly where responsibility lies. The Government no doubt have shied away from that solution not just for the reasons advanced in the 1975 paper which I have quoted but because they want to play down what they are doing. They want to avoid setting up an Executive which could prove to be an effective rival to central Government. They do not want anyone strutting round in Cardiff calling himself the Prime Minister of Wales.
That is no doubt why, in order to add further to the confusion, they insist on retaining the absurd and almost ludicrous title of "Chief Executive". It is absurd because everyone is now used to the idea that in local government the chief executive is a paid officer—a civil servant. Only a Government who were intensely devious or incredibly obtuse or both could give the same title at different levels of government to the political lead-

er of the majority party and to the senior civil servant. They have stuck so obstinately to this cause in the face of sustained criticism and hostility that it seems that it is really their intention to create confusion.
Whatever else Parliament decides it must insist on changing the title as, indeed, Amendment No. 144 does. The Government must go further. They must remove the disguises and the wraps and decide whether they want a committee structure or a Cabinet structure for the Assembly. Either way there are drawbacks. As I have observed so often in these debates, the Government have produced a structure that is fundamentally unstable. We may seek to amend and improve, but we cannot make what is basically unstable a solid foundation for good government.
10.30 p.m.
If we are to avoid a challenge, competition with the central Government and a decisive advance down the slippery slope, it is tempting to make the whole thing as ineffective as possible and reduce it to the status of a glorified county council. But there would be practical drawbacks in such a course.
The Assembly is being given many appellate functions of government, and it is difficult to operate them on a purely committee system. More serious is the consequence of the division of legislative powers in the Bill. It is not true to say that this body will be purely administrative. It has a vital part of the legislative job to do and it will need a structure that produces far clearer cut decisions than are likely to be had from a committee system.
Then, of course, there are political considerations as well. There is the consideration that arises inevitably from what we are doing in this Bill. The Bill is responding to, and seeks to enshrine, national aspirations. In so far as it does so, and thought to do so, the public will demand something like a Cabinet structure rather than a committee structure. The nature of the Welsh Assembly, focusing, as it does, those aspirations, will guarantee that.
If we are to set up the Assembly it is impossible to believe that it would for long accept a purely local government structure. By one means or another, within its own rules of order, it would


seek to transform itself into something different. Either that, or it would fall back on the well-tried and wholly unsatisfactory expedient of caucus government.
However thick the disguise, however complex the arrangements proposed, whatever the language used by Ministers, what we are in practice doing in the Bill as it is presently drafted is setting up a separate Executive and a separate Administration responsible for a large part of the government of Wales. As a result we shall have two competing Administrations. That, therefore, seems another reason why we should provide a Cabinet structure rather than the other system. That is the way to make absolutely clear to this House of Commons, and to the people of Wales, precisely what we are doing.
If we have an Assembly, and if we give it responsibility for a major part of the administration and part of the legislative functions, we are starting down a long path that might well lead to separatism. We are creating something that is fundamentally unstable and dangerous. The House of Commons should understand what it is that we are doing. There seems to me to be a clear-cut reason for getting away from the confusion enshrined in the Bill as it is presently drafted. That is perhaps the most important reason of all why I commend these amendments to the Committee.

Mr. Gerry Fowler: This has been a remarkable debate so far. I listened with interest to the right hon. and learned Member for Huntingdonshire (Sir D. Renton). Basically he expressed puzzlement. I hope that I can enlighten him and relieve him of some of his puzzlement.
My hon. Friend the Member for West Lothian (Mr. Dalyell) raised the West Glamorgan question at some length. How that arises under this amendment, or this clause, is beyond my comprehension. We are simply discussing the structure and leadership of the committee within the Assembly. In passing I would say that I do not believe that the West Glamorgan question arises at all. Welsh Members of this House will remain party to legislation that affects every aspect of life in Wales, as well as England. It is absurd to draw parallels between Scotland and the powers of the

Scottish Assembly given in that Bill and the powers given to the Welsh Assembly in this Bill.
I have no desire to stray into the irrelevancies of my hon. Friend the Member for West Lothian, so I shall restrict myself to discussing this clause and these amendments.

Mr. Ioan Evans: Before my hon. Friend leaves that point—

Mr. Fowler: I have already left that point. I do not want to compound the error of discussing the West Glamorgan question on every clause, whatever its nature.
I listened carefully to the fantastic speech of the hon. Member for Pembroke (Mr. Edwards). The Conservative Front Bench appears to be advocating a Cabinet system for an Assembly in Wales which it does not really want, except on a consultative basis. That is the most remarkable turnabout that I have ever seen in politics. The Conservatives say that they do not want an Assembly at all, except as a consultative Assembly, but then they say that if there is to be an Assembly, it must have a Cabinet.

Mr. Nicholas Edwards: The hon. Member should not distort what I said, and mislead the Committee. I said that a wholly unworkable system had been imposed upon us by the Government. If we were to have such a system, the Government's intentions should be set out explicitly in the Bill. I want something more explicit than the total confusion that we have at present.

Mr. Fowler: The hon. Member has just resiled somewhat from the position that he took earlier. Why do we have a Cabinet system or a committee system? What are the virtues of each? There is no doubt at all about the situation in which we have a Cabinet system. It is a system in which certain powers and functions rest with individuals, and these individuals collectively form a committee in which differences are hammered out, and then that committee exercises collective responsibility. A Cabinet system is needed in a situation where the exercise of individual responsibility is necessary. The extreme case of that is when a Minister stands before the House answering for his Department, or more importantly, defending a Bill for which


he, and he alone, is responsible—just as my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for Wales is responsible for this Bill. The Cabinet system is about individual responsibility of Ministers and collective responsibility of those Ministers acting in committee.
There is only one alternative to that—the committee system. If power is divided between two Ministers then those two Ministers are a committee. There is no half-way house dividing power among one and a half people. Executive decisions are taken by more than one person, after wide debate. The virtue of the committee system is that executive decisions are discussed more openly in public, and they are not the decisions of one person alone. In that sense they are more democratic.
The purpose of the provisions is to obtain a compromise between the two positions. What is the argument against having a Cabinet system? The argument is simple, namely, that the Welsh Assembly will not be a legislative Assembly. There will be no Welsh Minister who will be required to stand at a Dispatch Box and defend a Bill for which he and he alone is responsible.
Why should one want Ministers, or a Cabinet system? Yet that is what the hon. Member for Pembroke has been saying we should have if we are to have an Assembly of this sort. But there is to be wide executive responsibility. Therefore, it is sensible to have some kind of executive committee to determine overall policy for the Assembly, and it is sensible to have one person in a committee to whom power can be delegated in case of need for the ease and efficiency of administration, but not necessarily a person to whom powers shall be delegated. That is exactly what the Bill provides for. If we did not have that situation, we should find that were the burden of executive decision so great that a committee system could not digest it without such delegation, the power of delegation would not exist. Alternatively, if we followed the hon. Gentleman's line of argument, we would find that all powers were automatically delegated. That would be a reduction of democracy and of open discussion in the Assembly. Neither course is desirable.
The hon. Gentleman believes that power will be automatically delegated. I do not know what leads him to that view. I do not know what leads the hon. Gentleman to the view that in this House, if the Parliamentary Labour Party or the 1922 Committee were to be given its head and were to draw up a new constitution, it would create a Cabinet system in which most Back Benchers were powerless and would know that they were in that position. What leads him to believe that people would willingly resign any share of power which they had been given by legislation? To think that they would do so is a totally absurd argument.
Let me refer to the distinction between chairman and leader. The hon. Gentleman said that Kilbrandon did not draw that distinction. I do not regard Kilbrandon as holy writ. If I did, I would regard it as singularly self-contradictory holy writ. It is the most remarkable do-it-yourself report that I have ever seen. There is in Kilbrandon material to support almost any case. Kilbrandon suggests an executive committee, but an executive committee composed of chairmen.
Why should one separate the offices of chairman and leader? There are two reasons. The first is simple—namely, that the skills of chairmanship have little to do with the executive skills that one looks for in a leader or a member of that committee who will be a member of the executive committee. It is as if you, Mr. Murton, were to be selected for the post that you occupy with such distinction by virtue of the fact that you were deemed to be ministerial material. I would deem you to be ministerial material, but that would not be the right criterion.

Sir David Renton: On a point of order, Mr. Murton. The hon. Gentleman has already been reminded that we want to hear the Secretary of State for Wales. One hopes that there will even be time for a reply to some of the points covered by the hon. Gentleman himself.

Mr. Fowler: I have been asked to give the Secretary of State time to reply, and I shall do so. There is still time for me to do that. My point is that the skills of chairmanship and leadership are distinct. But there is another point, and it is as important.
We have been told not to look a gift horse in the mouth. The likelihood in the foreseeable future is that on most occasions the Welsh Assembly will have a major Labour majority within it and will want to combine the offices of leader and chairman. That distinction has another virtue, apart from the one that I have mentioned. If there is a majority party in the Assembly, it may elect—I hope that it will—to chair the committees those who should be so elected by virtue of their skill as chairmen, irrespective of their party membership. It seems that there is a wish to deny the Conservative Party and other minority parties in Wales the chance to exercise some office in the Welsh Assembly if there is a Labour majority. I hope that that is not the intention and that the amendment will be withdrawn.

10.45 p.m.

Mr. Raison: This has been a short debate, but it has given us a chance to consider what may prove to be the Achilles heel of the Bill, perhaps even more than the West Lothian question, the West Glamorgan question, or whatever we care to call it. The question is how the Assembly is to function.
We have been talking about the way in which committees will function within the scheme put forward by the Government. How are the committees to work on behalf of the Assembly? How are they to exercise the powers that are to be conferred upon the Assembly? Above all, how are we to ensure that Acts of Parliament will be implemented by the Assembly which is to hold this quasi-delegated power? I believe that these questions highlight what would prove to be the Achilles heel of the whole of the system were it ever to come into being.
For example, the Education Act 1976—to me the Act is completely odious, but I do not wish to go into that—requires local authorities to go comprehensive. The basis of that Act is a sort of interplay or counterpoint between the Secretary of State for Education and Science and the local authorities. The authorities are meant to put forward schemes and the Secretary of State is meant to ensure that certain things happen.
Let us suppose that we had a Welsh Assembly that, very rightly, was totally opposed to the Education Act 1976. Unless I have misread the whole scheme,

I understand that it would be given the duty that at present lies with the Secretary of State of carrying out the Act's requirements.
Who in the Assembly would have such duties? I assume that they could be exercised collectively by the Assembly or delegated to one of the committees that we are discussing. They could be delegated to the leader of one of the committees, to the chairmen of the committees or to the Chief Executive. I should like to know what the Government have in mind. Whatever the answer, it seems that we are getting into an impossible situation.
The bodies that will carry out the functions now undertaken by the Secretary of State may be totally opposed to the Act. It may be said that that is a common occurrence in local government, but that is a different matter. In local government there is in the background the Secretary of State, who has almost the function of a district commissioner if he considers that local government is failing. The Minister of State laughs, but what I say is true. The Secretary of State has the power to put in commissioners. That power is given under Section 99 of the Education Act. There are powerful reserve powers. However, those powers will not remain with him. They will be transferred to the Assembly.
The Assembly may decide that it does not like the Act. The Chief Executive may decide that he does not like it. He may decide to be dilatory in implementing it. He may not carry out what Parliament has required. As a result, we shall see complete and utter chaos.
It seems that there is no way out of these difficulties under the Government's scheme. If the Secretary of State has an answer, he should tell the Committee. I feel that this will prove to be the fatal flaw in the Government's scheme, even more than the West Lothian question, and one to which there is no answer.

Mr. John Morris: Having listened attentively to the debate, I am somewhat mystified about the difficulties that hon. Members see arising from the clauses. The position is simple. We are proposing a basic framework for the Assembly. We believe that it will ensure the efficient working of the Assembly. As a Welsh Member of Parliament who has had the


honour of serving his constituency for a number of years and seen both Westminster and local government at work and can more than guess what the political complexion of the Assembly is likely to be, I believe that, in addition to the need for efficiency, there should be the maximum opportunity for minority parties to participate. Those are the twin strands of our approach to this problem.
I concede immediately that it would have been easier and less likely to cause the imaginary fears of hon. Members if we had no arrangement of any kind, shape or form and allowed the Assembly to do what it might. That is an attractive course. But we have come to the conclusion that the Westminster model is not the only model that should be given to a new constitution for an Assembly in the Principality. Indeed, hardly a week goes by when there is not a complaint about the lack of opportunity in the House of Commons to influence the Executive and to participate in its decision making. There are severe criticisms about the way that we are content to organise our business.
I was not sure how hon. Members were venting their objections. The hon. Member for Pembroke (Mr. Edwards) said that if there were to be an Assembly—I do not say that he in any way accepted the idea of an Assembly—he would prefer a Cabinet system. On the other hand, he said that this Assembly would develop into a Cabinet system. If he thinks that it will develop into such a system, where lies his objection? What has he to fear? He cannot have it both ways.
The right hon. and learned Member for Huntingdonshire (Sir D. Renton) said that there would be a mass of committees. He went through subject after subject. There was to be such a galaxy of committees that there would not be the manpower—or the person power, to be correct—to man them. There is no need to have a committee for each subject.

Sir David Renton: The subsection provides that
the Assembly shall appoint committees … with functions relating to all the powers conferred on the Assembly.

Mr. Morris: Precisely. My interpretation is that it is open to the Assembly

to appoint a committee or committees which could be charged with more than one function. The right hon. and learned Gentleman appeared to suggest that there would have to be a committee dealing solely with burials, another committee dealing with markets and fairs, and so on. That is not my understanding and advice to the Committee. It would be open to the Assembly, within this framework, to decide the number of committees that it would have. If that is the burden of the right hon. and learned Gentleman's fear, let me put him out of his misery on that score straight away.
We are seeking to ensure that there is an arrangement for participation and the utmost flexibility as regards delegation. Of course, different situations may arise. Some maters will need speedy decisions. In these circumstances it will be open to the Assembly and the committee to delegate responsibility to the executive member. There will be time and opportunity for lengthy consideration and that decision will be taken by the committee.
Given this framework and the need to have such committees, given the provision in another part of the Bill to have members who reflect political representation on the committee, there is a new opportunity for minority parties—and there will be a number of them in the Assembly—to take part in decision-making.

Mr. Hooson: If Clause 18 and 19 are excluded from the Bill the Welsh Assembly will set up its own procedure and it will be answerable to the Welsh people. If it misuses the procedure laid down by Parliament it will blame Parliament.

Mr. Morris: That is an attractive argument. But the hon. and learned Member for Montgomery (Mr. Hooson) should be the first to recognise that this is an opportunity for minority parties. I suspect that his party will be a minority party in the Assembly. I should have thought that he would be seized of this opportunity to ensure that his party participates in decision-making.
I see this as an advance on the democracy in which we take great pride. It is an improvement on our principles. If it develops in certain ways, so be it. That is for the Assembly to decide. We have provided the framework for the Assembly.
My hon. Friend the Member for The Wrekin (Mr. Fowler) said that different


skills are necessary for chairmanship. Separating the two offices will ensure that there is a bigger, more creative and helpful role for all parties than there would be if both offices were held by one person. This is an advance. All the fears advanced will not be borne out.
It has been suggested that we are introducing into the Bill the worst features of local government. This feature is not new. The situation applies to chairmen, leaders of councils, mayors and chairmen of Committees of the House of Commons. It is not novel to divide the chair and the leadership. The need to get decisions through is the responsibility of the majority party.
We have devised a system which is, perhaps, not familiar to hon. Members who are not involved in local government. But it is not entirely novel. It is a system which works in local government. What we propose is a development of that to combine efficiency, speed and flexibility, for the Assembly to use its powers of delegation, and at the same time, to ensure maximum participation

by those with different political views. That will result in an improved quality of decision-making. My advice to the Committee is to reject the amendment.

Mr. Hooson: I do not believe that the Secretary of State is right to say that this is a safeguard for minority parties. The fear is that too many decisions will be taken by unpublicised manoeuvre instead of by open government in a Cabinet system. If the Assembly is to be entrusted with setting up its own orders and so on, it can be entrusted with setting up its own system of government, whatever it is. It is an unwise precedent to follow. There is the local government precedent in this matter and it would certainly—

It being Eleven o'clock, The Chairman proceeded, pursuant to the Order [16th November] and the Resolution [1st March], to put forthwith the Question already proposed from the Chair.

Question put, That the amendment be made:—

The Committee divided: Ayes 177, Noes 203.

Division No. 138]
AYES
[11.0 p.m.


Adley, Robert
Finsberg, Geoffrey
Knox, David


Aitken, Jonathan
Fletcher, Alex (Edinburgh N)
Latham, Michael (Melton)


Alison, Michael
Fookes, Miss Janet
Lawrence, Ivan


Arnold, Tom
Forman, Nigel
Lawson, Nigel


Atkins, Rt Hon H. (Spelthorne)
Fowler, Norman (Sutton C'f'd)
Loveridge, John


Atkinson, David (Bournemouth, East)
Freud, Clement
Luce, Richard


Banks, Robert
Gardner, Edward (S Fylde)
McCrindle, Robert


Bendall, Vivian (Ilford North)
Glyn, Dr Alan
Macfarlane, Neil


Bennett, Sir Frederic (Torbay)
Goodhart, Philip
MacKay, Andrew (Stechford)


Benyon, W.
Goodhew, Victor
Marshall, Michael (Arundel)


Berry, Hon Anthony
Gorst, John
Marten, Nell


Bitten, John
Gow, Ian (Eastbourne)
Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin


Body, Richard
Gower, Sir Raymond (Barry)
Mayhew, Patrick


Boscawen, Hon Robert
Gray, Hamish
Meyer, Sir Anthony


Bottomley, Peter
Grieve, Percy
Miller, Hal (Bromsgrove)


Bowden, A. (Brighton, Kemptown)
Griffiths, Eldon
Mills, Peter


Boyson, Dr Rhodes (Brent)
Almond, Rt Hon J.
Mitchell, David (Basingstoke)


Brittan, Leon
Grist, Ian
Moate, Roger


Brocklebank-Fowler, C.
Grylls, Michael
Moore, John (Croydon C)


Brooke, Peter
Hall-Davis, A. G. F.
More, Jasper (Ludlow)


Bryan, Sir Paul
Hannam, John
Morgan, Geraint


Buchanan-Smith, Alick
Harrison, Col Sir Harwood (Eye)
Morris, Michael (Northampton S)


Buck, Antony
Havers, Rt Hon Sir Michael
Morrison, Charles (Devizes)


Budgen, Nick
Hayhoe, Barney
Morrison, Hon Peter (Chester)


Bulmer, Esmond
Heath, Rt Hon Edward
Mudd, David


Burden, F. A.
Hicks, Robert
Nelson, Anthony


Carlisle, Mark
Hodgson, Robin
Neubert, Michael


Chalker, Mrs Lynda
Hooson, Emlyn
Onslow, Cranley


Clark, William (Croydon S)
Hordern, Peter
Page, Rt Hon R. Graham (Crosby)


Clarke, Kenneth (Rushcliffe)
Howell, David (Guildford)
Page, Richard (Workington)


Clegg, Walter
Hunt, David (Wirral)
Pattie, Geoffrey


Cooke, Robert (Bristol W)
Hurd, Douglas
Panhaligon, David


Cormack, Patrick
Hutchison, Michael Clark
Percival, Ian


Costain, A. P.
James, David
Pink, R. Bonner


Crouch, David
Jessel, Toby
Powell, Rt Hon J. Enoch


Dales, Rt Hon J. (Knutsford)
Johnson Smith, G. (E Grinstead)
Price, David (Eastleigh)


Dean, Paul (N Somerset)
Jopling, Michael
Prior, Rt Hon James


Dodsworth, Geoffrey
Joseph, Rt Hon Sir Keith
Pym, Rt Hon Francis


Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James
Kershaw, Anthony
Raison, Timothy


Drayson, Burnaby
Kilfedder, James
Rathbone, Tim


Eden, Rt Hon Sir John
Kimball, Marcus
Rawlinson, Rt Hon Sir Peter


Edwards, Nicholas (Pembroke)
King, Evelyn (South Dorset)
Rees, Peter (Dover &amp; Deal)


Elliott, Sir William
King, Tom (Bridgwater)
Renton, Rt Hon Sir D. (Hunts)


Emery, Peter
Kitson, Sir Timothy
Renton, Tim (Mid-Sussex)


Fairbairn, Nicholas
Knight, Mrs Jill
Rhodes James, R.




Ridley, Hon Nicholas
Smith, Dudley (Warwick)
Wakeham, John


Ridsdale, Julian
Smith, Timothy John (Ashfield)
Walder, David (Clitheroe)


Riffled, Malcolm
Speed, Keith
Walker, Rt Hon P (Worcester)


Roberts WAN (Conway)
Spence, John
Wall, Patrick


Rossi, Hugh (Hornsey)
Sproat, lain
Warren, Kenneth


Rost, Peter (SE Derbyshire)
Stainton, Keith
Weatherill, Bernard


Sainsbury, Tim
Stanbrook, Ivor
Wells, John


Shaw, Giles (Pudsey)
Stanley, John
Whitelaw, Rt Hon William


Shepherd, Colin
Stradling Thomas, J.
Wiggin, Jerry


Shersby, Michael
Tebbit, Norman
Winterton, Nicholas


Silvester, Fred
Temple-Morris, Peter
Younger, Hon George


Sims, Roger
Thomas, Rt Hon P (Hendon S)



Sinclair, Sir George
van Straubenzee, W. R.
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


Skeet, T. H. H.
Viggers, Peter
Mr. Jim Lester.


Smith, Cyril (Rochdale)
Wainwright, Richard (Colne V)
Mr. John MacGregor.




NOES


Abse, Leo
Foot, Rt Hon Michael
Morris, Alfred (Wythenshawe)


Allaun, Frank
Forrester, John
Morris, Charles R. (Openshaw)


Anderson, Donald
Fowler, Gerald (The Wrekin)
Morris, Rt Hon J. (Aberavon)


Archer, Rt Hon Peter
Freud, Clement
Moyle, Roland


Armstrong, Ernest
George, Bruce
Mulley, Rt Hon Frederick


Atkins, Ronald (Preston N)
Golding, John
Noble, Mike


Atkinson, Norman
Gould, Bryan
Ogden, Eric


Bain, Mrs Margaret Barnett, Guy (Greenwich)
Gourlay, Harry Grant, George (Morpeth)
Orbach, Maurice Orme, Rt Hon Stanley


Bates, All
Grant, John (Islington C)
Ovenden, John


Bean, R. E.
Grocott, Bruce
Padley, Walter


Beith, A. J.
Hamilton, James (Bothwell)
Pardoe, John


Bennett, Andrew (Stockport N)
Harper, Joseph
Parker, John


Bishop, Rt Hon Edward
Harrison, Rt Hon Walter
Parry, Robert


Blenkinsop, Arthur
Hayman. Mrs Helene
Pavitt, Laurie


Boothroyd, Miss Betty
Henderson, Douglas
Price, William (Rugby)


Bottomley, Rt Hon Arthur
Hooley, Frank
Radice, Giles


Bray, Dr Jeremy
Horam, John
Rees, Rt Hon Merlyn (Leeds S)


Brown, Robert C. (Newcastle W)
Howells, Geraint (Cardigan)
Reid, George


Buchanan, Richard
Hoyle. Doug (Nelson)
Roberts, Albert (Normanton)


Butler, Mrs Joyce (Wood Green)
Huckfield. Les
Roberts Gwilym (Cannock)


Callaghan, Jim (Middleton &amp; P)
Hughes, Rt Hon C. (Anglesey)
Robinson, Geoffrey


Campbell, Ian
Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)
Roderick, Caerwyn


Canavan, Dennis
Hughes, Roy (Newport)
Rodgers, George (Chorley)


Carmichael, Neil
Hunter, Adam
Rodgers, Rt Hon William (Stockton)


Carter-Jones, Lewis
Jackson. Miss Margaret (Lincoln)
Rooker, J. W.


Clemitson, Ivor
Janner, Greville
Roper, John


Cocks, Rt Hon Michael (Bristol S)
Jay, Rt Hon Douglas
Ross, Rt Hon W. (Kilmarnock)


Cohen, Stanley
John, Brynmor
Ross, William (Londonderry)


Coleman, Donald
Johnson. James (Hull West)
Rowlands, Ted


Cook, Robin F. (Edin C)
Johnston, Russell (Inverness)
Sedgemore, Brian


Cowans, Harry
Jones, Alec (Rhondda)
Shaw, Arnold (Ilford South)


Cox, Thomas (Tooting)
Jones, Barry (East Flint)
Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert


Crawshaw, Richard
Jones, Dan (Burnley)
Silkin, Rt Hon S. C. (Dulwich)


Cronin, John
Kilroy-Silk, Robert
Skinner, Dennis


Crowther, Stan (Rotherham)
Lambie, David
Smith, John (N Lanarkshire)


Cryer, Bob
Lamond, James
Snape, Peter


Cunningham, G. (Islington S)
Latham, Arthur (Paddington)
Spearing, Nigel


Cunningham, Dr J. (Whiteh)
Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)
Stallard, A. W.


Dalyell, Tarn
Lyon, Alexander (York)
Steel, Rt Hon David


Davidson, Arthur
Lyons, Edward (Bradford W)
Stewart, Rt Hon Donald


Davies, Bryan (Enfield N)
MacCormick, lain
Stewart, Rt Hon M. (Fulham)


Davies, Denzil (Llanelli)
McCusker, H.
Stoddart, David


Davies, Ifor (Gower)
McDonald, Dr Oonagh
Stott, Roger


Davis, Clinton (Hackney C)
McElhone, Frank
Taylor, Mrs Ann (Bolton W)


Deakins, Eric
MacFarquhar, Roderick
Thomas, Dafydd (Merioneth)


Dean, Joseph (Leeds West)
McGuire, Michael (Ince)
Thomas, Jeffrey (Abertillery)


Dell, Rt Hon Edmund
MacKenzie, Rt Hon Gregor
Thomas, Ron (Bristol NW)


Dempsey, James
Mackintosh, John P.
Thompson, George


Doig, Peter
Maclennan, Robert
Tomlinson, John


Dormand, J. D.
McMillan, Tom (Glasgow C)
Torney, Tom


Douglas-Mann, Bruce
Madden, Max
Wainwright, Edwin (Dearne V)


Duffy, A. E. P.
Magee, Bryan
Walker, Harold (Doncaster)


Dunn, James A.
Mahon, Simon
Walker, Terry (Kingswood)


Eadie, Alex
Mallalieu, J. P. W.
Ward, Michael


Ellis, John (Brigg &amp; Scun)
Marks, Kenneth
Watkins, David


Ellis, Tom (Wrexham)
Marshall, Dr Edmund (Goole)
Watt, Hamish


Ennals, Rt Hon David
Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)
Wellbeloved, James


Evans, Gwynfor (Carmarthen)
Maynard, Miss Joan
Welsh, Andrew


Evans, Ioan (Aberdare)
Meacher, Michael
White, Frank R. (Bury)


Ewing, Harry (Stirling)
Mendelson, John
White, James (Pollok)


Ewing, Mrs Winifred (Moray)
Millan, Rt Hon Bruce
Whitehead, Phillip


Fernyhough, Rt Hon E.
Mitchell, Austin
Wigley, Dafydd


Flannery, Martin
Molloy, William
Williams, Alan Lee (Hornch'ch)


Fletcher, Ted (Darlington)
Molyneaux, James
Wilson, Alexander (Hamilton)







Wilson, Gordon (Dundee E)
Woodall, Alec
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:


Wilson, Rt Hon Sir Harold (Huyton)
Woof, Robert
Mr. Ted Graham and


Wilson, William (Coventry SE)
Wrigglesworth, Ian
Mr. James Tinn.


Wise, Mrs Audrey
Young, David (Bolton E)

Question accordingly negatived.

The CHAIRMAN then proceeded to put Question put forthwith the Questions necessary for the disposal of the Business to be concluded at Eleven o'clock.

Question put, That the clause part of the Bill:—

The Committee divided: Ayes 201, Noes 173.

Division No. 139]
AYES
[11.13 p.m.


Allaun, Frank
Gould, Bryan
Padley, Walter


Anderson, Donald
Gourlay, Harry
Parker, John


Archer, Rt Hon Peter
Graham, Ted
Parry, Robert


Armstrong, Ernest
Grant, George (Morpeth)
Pavitt, Laurie


Atkins, Ronald (Preston N)
Grant, John (Islington C)
Panhaligon, David


Atkinson, Norman
Grocott, Bruce
Price, William (Rugby)


Bain, Mrs Margaret
Hamilton, James (Bothwell)
Radice, Giles


Barnett, Guy (Greenwich)
Harrison, Rt Hon Walter
Rees, Rt Hon Merlyn (Leeds S)


Bates, Alf
Hayman, Mrs Helena
Reid, George


Bean, R. E.
Henderson, Douglas
Roberts, Albert (Normanton)


Beith, A. J.
Hooley, Frank
Roberts. Gwilym (Cannock)


Bennett, Andrew (Stockport N)
Horam, John
Robinson, Geoffrey


Bishop, Rt Hon Edward
Howells, Geraint (Cardigan)
Roderick, Caerwyn


Blenkinsop, Arthur
Hoyle, Doug (Nelson)
Rodgers, George (Chorley)


Boothroyd, Miss Betty
Huckfield, Les
Rodgers, Rt Hon William (Stockton)


Bottomley, Rt Hon Arthur
Hughes, Rt Hon C. (Anglesey)
Rooker, J. W.


Bray, Dr Jeremy
Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)
Roper, John


Brown, Robert C. (Newcastle W)
Hughes, Roy (Newport)
Ross, Rt Hon W. (Kilmarnock)


Buchanan, Richard
Hunter, Adam
Ross, William (Londonderry)


Butler, Mrs Joyce (Wood Green)
Jackson, Miss Margaret (Lincoln)
Rowlands, Ted


Callaghan, Jim (Middleton &amp; P)
Janner, Greville
Sedgemore, Brian


Campbell, Ian
Jay, Rt Hon Douglas
Shaw, Arnold (Ilford South)


Canavan, Dennis
John, Brynmor
Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert


Carmichael, Neil
Johnson, James (Hull West)
Silkin, Rt Hon S. C. (Dulwich)


Carter-Jones, Lewis
Johnston, Russell (Inverness)
Skinner, Dennis


Clemitson, Ivor
Jones, Alec (Rhondda)
Smith, John (N Lanarkshire)


Cocks, Rt Hon Michael (Bristol S)
Jones, Barry (East Flint)
Snape, Peter


Cohen, Stanley
Jones, Dan (Burnley)
Spearing, Nigel


Coleman, Donald
Kilroy-Silk, Robert
Steel, Rt Hon David


Cook, Robin F. (Edin C)
Lambie, David
Stewart, Rt Hon Donald


Cowans, Harry
Lamond, James
Stewart, Rt Hon M. (Fulham)


Cox, Thomas (Tooting)
Latham, Arthur (Paddington)
Stoddart, David


Crawshaw, Richard
Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)
Stott, Roger


Cronin, John
Lyon, Alexander (York)
Taylor, Mrs Ann (Bolton W)


Crowther, Stan (Rotherham)
Lyons, Edward (Bradford W)
Thomas, Dafydd (Merioneth)


Cryer, Bob
MacCormick, Iain
Thomas, Jeffrey (Abertillery)


Cunningham, G. (Islington S)
McCusker, H.
Thomas, Ron (Bristol NW)


Cunningham, Dr J. (Whiteh)
McDonald, Dr Oonagh
Thompson, George


Davidson, Arthur
McElhone, Frank
Tinn, James


Davies, Bryan (Enfield N)
MacFarquhar, Roderick
Tomlinson, John


Davies, Denzil (Llanelli)
McGuire, Michael (Ince)
Torney, Tom


Davies, Ifor (Gower)
MacKenzie, Rt Hon Gregor
Wainwright, Edwin (Dearne V)


Davis, Clinton (Hackney C)
Mackintosh, John P.
Wainwright, Richard (Colne V)


Deakins, Eric
Maclennan, Robert
Walker, Harold (Doncaster)


Dean, Joseph (Leeds West)
McMillan, Tom (Glasgow C)
Walker, Terry (Kingswood)


Dell, Rt Hon Edmund
Madden, Max
Ward, Michael


Dempsey, James
Magee, Bryan
Watkins, David


Doig, Peter
Mahon, Simon
Watt, Hamish


Dormand, J. D.
Mallalieu, J. P. W.
Wellbeloved, James


Douglas-Mann, Bruce
Marks, Kenneth
Welsh, Andrew


Duffy, A. E. P.
Marshall, Dr Edmund (Goole)
White, Frank R. (Bury)


Dunn, James A.
Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)
White, James (Pollok)


Eadie, Alex
Maynard, Miss Joan
Whitehead, Phillip


Ellis, John (Brigg &amp; Scun)
Meacher, Michael
Wigley, Dafydd


Ellis, Tom (Wrexham)
Millan, Rt Hon Bruce
Williams, Alan Lee (Hornch'ch)


Ennals, Rt Hon David
Mitchell, Austin
Wilson, Alexander (Hamilton)


Evans, Gwynfor (Carmarthen)
Molloy, William
Wilson, Gordon (Dundee E)


Evans, Ioan (Aberdare)
Molyneaux, James
Wilson, Rt Hon Sir Harold (Huyton)


Ewing, Harry (Stirling)
Morris, Alfred (Wythenshawe)
Wilson, William (Coventry SE)


Ewing, Mrs Winifred (Moray)
Morris, Charles R. (Openshaw)
Wise, Mrs Audrey


Fernyhough, Rt Hon E.
Morris, Rt Hon J. (Aberavon)
Woodall, Alec


Flannery, Martin
Movie, Roland
Woof, Robert


Fletcher, Ted (Darlington)
Mulley, Rt Hon Frederick
Wrigglesworth, Ian


Foot, Rt Hon Michael
Noble, Mike
Young, David (Bolton E)


Forrester, John
Ogden, Eric



Fowler, Gerald (The Wrekin)
Orbach, Maurice
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


Freud, Clement
Orme, Rt Hon Stanley
Mr. Joseph Harper and


George, Bruce
Ovenden, John
Mr. A. W. Stallard.


Golding, John






NOES


Adley, Robert
Grist, Ian
Page, Richard (Workington)


Aitken, Jonathan
Grylls, Michael
Pattie, Geoffrey


Alison Michael
Hall-Davis, A. G. F.
Percival, Ian


Arnold, Tom
Hannam, John
Pink, R. Bonner


Atkins, Rt Hon H. (Spelthorne)
Harrison, Col Sir Harwood (Eye)
Powell, Rt Hon J. Enoch


Atkinson, David (Bournemouth, East)
Havers, Rt Hon Sir Michael
Price, David (Eastleigh)


Banks, Robert
Hayhoe, Barney
Prior, Rt Hon James


Bennett, Sir Frederic (Torbay)
Heath, Rt Hon Edward
Pym, Rt Hon Francis


Benyon, W.
Hicks, Robert
Raison, Timothy


Biffen, John
Hodgson, Robin
Rathbone, Tim


Body, Richard
Hooson, Emlyn
Rawlinson, Rt Hon Sir Peter


Boscawen, Hon Robert
Hordern, Peter
Rees, Peter (Dover &amp; Deal)


Bottomley, Peter
Howell, David (Guildford)
Renton, Rt Hon Sir D. (Hunts)


Bowden, A. (Brighton, Kemptown)
Hunt, David (Wirral)
Renton, Tim (Mid-Sussex)


Boyson, Dr Rhodes (Brent)
Hurd, Douglas
Rhodes James, R.


Brittan, Leon
Hutchison, Michael Clark
Ridley, Hon Nicholas


Brocklebank-Fowler, C.
James, David
Ridsdale, Julian


Brooke, Peter
Jessel, Toby
Rifkind, Malcolm


Bryan, Sir Paul
Johnson Smith, G. (E Grinstead)
Roberts. Wyn (Conway)


Buchanan-Smith, Alick
Jopling, Michael
Rossi, Hugh (Hornsey)


Buck, Antony
Joseph, Rt Hon Sir Keith
Rost, Peter (SE Derbyshire)


Budgen, Nick
Kershaw, Anthony
Sainsbury, Tim


Bulmer, Esmond
Kimball, Marcus
Shaw, Giles (Pudsey)


Burden, F. A.
King, Evelyn (South Dorset)
Shepherd, Colin


Bendall, Vivian (Ilford North)
King, Tom (Bridgwater)
Shersby, Michael


Carlisle, Mark
Kitson, Sir Timothy
Silvester, Fred


Chalker, Mrs Lynda
Knight, Mrs Jill
Sims, Roger


Clark, William (Croydon S)
Knox, David
Sinclair, Sir George


Clarke, Kenneth (Rushcliffe)
Latham, Michael (Melton)
Skeet, T. H. H.


Clegg, Walter
Lawrence, Ivan
Smith, Cyril (Rochdale)


Cooke, Robert (Bristol W)
Lawson, Nigel
Smith, Dudley (Warwick)


Cormack, Patrick
Lester, Jim (Beeston)
Smith, Timothy John (Ashfield)


Costain, A. P.
Loveridge, John
Speed, Keith


Crouch, David
Luce, Richard
Spence, John


Davies, Rt Hon J. (Knutsford)
McAdden, Sir Stephen
Sproat, lain


Dean, Paul (N Somerset)
McCrindle, Robert
Stainton, Keith


Dodsworth, Geoffrey
Macfarlane, Neil
Stanbrook, Ivor


Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James
MacGregor, John
Stanley, John


Drayson, Burnaby
MacKay, Andrew (Stechford)
Stradling Thomas, J.


Eden, Rt Hon Sir John
Marshall, Michael (Arundel)
Tebbit, Norman


Edwards, Nicholas (Pembroke)
Marten, Nell
Temple-Morris, Peter


Elliott, Sir William
Mawby, Ray
Thomas, Rt Hon P (Hendon S)


Emery, Peter
Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin
van Straubenzee, W. R.


Fairbairn, Nicholas
Mayhew, Patrick
Viggers, Peter


Finsberg, Geoffrey
Meyer, Sir Anthony
Wakeham, John


Fletcher, Alex (Edinburgh N)
Miller, Hal (Bromsgrove)
Walder, David (Clitheroe)


Fookes, Miss Janet
Mills, Peter
Walker, Rt Hon P (Worcester)


Forman, Nigel
Mitchell, David (Basingstoke)
Wall, Patrick


Fowler, Norman (Sutton C'f'd)
Moate, Roger
Warren, Kenneth


Gardner, Edward (S Fylde)
Moore, John (Croydon C)
Weatherill, Bernard


Glyn, Dr Alan
More, Jasper (Ludlow)
Wells, John


Goodhart, Philip
Morgan, Geraint
Whitelaw, Rt Hon William


Goodhew, Victor
Morris, Michael (Northampton S)
Wiggin, Jerry


Gorst, John
Morrison, Charles (Devizes)
Winterton, Nicholas


Gow, Ian (Eastbourne)
Mudd, David
Younger, Hon George


Gower, Sir Raymond (Barry)
Nelson, Anthony



Gray, Hamish
Neubert, Michael
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:


Grieve, Percy
Onslow, Cranley
Mr. Peter Morrison and


Griffiths, Eldon
Page, Rt Hon R. Graham (Crosby)
Mr. Anthony Berry

Question accordingly agreed to.

Clause 18 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clauses 19 to 24 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Then The CHAIRMAN left the Chair to report Progress and ask leave to sit again, pursuant to Order [16th November].

Committee report Progress; to sit again tomorrow.

EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT (MEMBERSHIP)

Ordered,
That with effect from 13th March Mr. Christopher Price and Mr. John Evans be dis-

charged from membership of the European Parliament and that Mr. George Cunningham and Mr. Alan Fitch be designated members of the European Parliament.
That this Order be a Standing Order of the House.—[Mr. Walter Harrison.]

BRITISH LEYLAND (SPEKE PLANT)

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Jim Marshall.]

11.27 p.m.

Mr. Eddie Loyden: The Adjournment debate tonight


is about the proposal to close British Leyland's No. 2 plant at Speke, and it has to be set against the background of Merseyside's unemployment, because my view is that the proposal is completely unacceptable on a number of counts.
The House will be well aware of the unemployment and job opportunities position on Merseyside. It will be readily appreciated that the loss of a further 3,000 jobs represents a serious setback to any hopes of industrial recovery. This not only applies to Merseyside; it extends into the North-West Region. It will have a serious effect on the attempts being made to reduce unemployment in the area, which is at present running at a level of 11·6 per cent. It will also affect job opportunities in an area which is already starved of jobs It will make it even more difficult for young people to find employment and certainly it will create serious problems for the new generation of job seekers going into industry in the near future, it paints a picture of real despair.
This is happening at a time when both the Department of Employment and the Department of the Environment are attempting to remedy the problems in that part of the world. The inner city or inner area programme of the Department of the Environment and the Department of Employment's youth opportunities programme are designed to deal with areas like Merseyside, in terms of job creation.
These policies are directed towards bringing resources to the area in order to improve the social, economic and industrial fabric of hat part of Merseyside. While this is going on on the one hand, the axing of 3,000 jobs—if this proposal is carried—means that much of the work being done by those Departments will come to nought. It makes a nonsense of almost every policy designed for this purpose.
Merseyside is a special development area. The efforts that have been made by this instrument will be of no avail if jobs in Merseyside are slashed at their present rate. In addition to the Speke closure, we have heard that the Birds Eye factory in Kirkby intends to close, Courtaulds has already declared that 400 with the loss of a further 1,200 jobs.

jobs will go from the Aintree plant. The accumulation of these job losses represents a most serious loss for Merseyside.
One can well imagine the amount of investment that will be needed to create the number of jobs that I have outlined. We all know that it is not simply the jobs that I have mentioned that will be lost. If we apply the multiplier, it means that we are talking of about 10,000 or 12,000 jobs. The sub-contractors at Speke, transport, the small shopkeepers, the community generally, the loss of £750,000 to the rates, will all have a dramatic and serious effect upon industrial recovery and employment opportunities on Merseyside.
Indeed, it was through the industrial development certificate that British Leyland first went to Merseyside. It seems an absolutely blatant contradiction of Government policy that in view of the way that this industry was brought to Merseyside we should now be talking about the axing of jobs in the car industry to the extent suggested. On another count it also means that the plans of British Leyland have virtually taken a U-turn. Indeed, that is as serious an argument and problem as the one relating to Merseyside jobs.
What has really happened to the plans of yesteryear and to the Ryder concept of a British-based, British-owned car industry? At the time this House supported the rescue of British Leyland and the Ryder plan which gave hope and opportunity for the development of a British-based, British-owned car industry. My right hon. Friend the Member for Huyton (Sir H. Wilson), the then Prime Minister, said on receiving the Ryder Report:
The choice facing the Government on receiving the Ryder Report, the choice now facing the House, is this. Is Britain to have a major indigenous automobile industry, or should we have decided that British Leyland could survive profitably on a diminished scale, selling up-market cars together with trucks and buses? Are we, through a lack of courage in responding to a tremendous and costly challenge, to endanger a million jobs, and at the same time to see a shrinkage of exports, and vastly greater imports for the home market, which would be bound to affect our balance of payments disastrously?
The Government have decided that Britain must remain in the world league so far as a British-owned automobile industry is concerned."—[Official Report, 24th April 1975; Vol. 890, c. 1747–8.]


It would appear that the Government have at least begun part of that U-turn, when one considers closure of the Speke factory and the context of the whole corporate plan.
There may be differences among us as to how the objectives of the Ryder plan could be achieved, but one thing that we all know is that one way of not achieving it is to close the second most modern plant in the Leyland network. That is what is happening at Speke.
Some of my hon. Friends and I have met the Leyland management. I for one remain basically dissatisfied with the reasons that it has given for the proposed closure of Speke. The question of the number of sales of the TR7 has remained unanswered. I understand that shop stewards have been unable to elicit information on sales of the TR7 in the United States.
Also, why were the plans for the closure of Speke not made known at the meeting when Mr Michael Edwardes was presenting the broad lines of the corporate plan to the trade union movement? Why was the closure decision taken when the trade unions had made the strike official, and there was every likelihood of a quick return to work? Why was the decision not discussed in the car council? One of the things that we agreed on was a worker participation scheme for Leyland. Participation means the involvement of workers in their industry. Yet at no time was the question of the closure of Speke discussed in the car council. Nor were there any discussions about the broader implications of the corporate plan.
Why, also, did the management take so long to decide to adopt the next stage of the procedure in the recent dispute? It was evident that the plant was working under a procedural agreement and that had the next stage been proceeded with the issue could have been settled. Yet there was resistance by the management to take the next steps.
As a shop steward of 30 years' experience I know that the procedural agreement forms a very important part of industrial relations. In many cases it is the Bible of industrial relations. Yet here is the management refusing to take the next steps on the procedural agreement, resulting in a prolonged dispute, a further lowering of the morale of workers,

and the beginning of the justification for the closure of the plant.
If the full capacity at Speke was not being reached why was other work not sent there? Obviously, there is work going from Leyland to other parts of Europe. I do not want to argue the case for Liverpool against that for other parts of Europe, or even other parts of the world, but there was an obligation on Leyland to see that additional work that was being done in Belgium was done at factories that were working under capacity. None of these decisions emanated from the workers. They are all part of management's responsibility. One very much doubts whether the reasons given by management for the closure of Speke are the real ones.
When the management was asked whether the closure had occurred because of the bad performance of the Speke work force, the company's representatives said that there was a poor record of performance. But when figures were requested, they were not available. There were merely vague statements that the work force was somehow or other responsible for the situation.
The management was also asked whether, if Speke had produced every car asked of it, it would still have been closed, and the answer was in the affirmative. Therefore, despite the tirade of abuse from the Press and the Opposition directed against the workers at a factory, it has undoubtedly been market considerations rather than anything else which have led to the present situation. The Leyland management said that Speke had in a sense been self-selected as a plant for closure.
Many people wonder whether there is not a more sinister motive behind the closure. Let me quote one headline from the Runcorn Guardian.
Plant closure manufactured by bosses".
The writer claims to have evidence in leaked documents showing top secret sales figures appearing to indicate market resistance to buying the TR7, or "the Bullet" as it is called. The figures show that even after a month's strike and lost production, when not a single car was produced, there were still 2,263 "Bullets" in the showrooms. The argument is that if production had continued at its normal rate of 12·5 cars per hour on a 17-hour


shift, by now the market would be swamped. That situation was not the responsibility of the Speke factory workers.
Accusations have been made about poor performance and disputes at Speke, but figures issued by the National Enterprise Board in 1976 show that in the last five or six years Speke has been more affected by lay-offs than by disputes. In other words, the situation over the last five or six years has been reasonably peaceful.
That position is borne out by the National Enterprise Board report. It shows that from October to March 1975 349,000 man-hours were lost through disputes as against 629,610 through lay-offs. In the period to April 1975, 117,366 man-hours were lost through disputes and 500,093 through lay-offs. In the period October 1975 to May 1976, 151,492 man-hours were lost through disputes and 250,380 through lay-offs. The Speke plant, even prior to the recent dispute, had a lay-off of six weeks, which meant that it had been idle for six months.
On every occasion the media and the Opposition have hit out at the workers. They have made no constructive proposals. As has been evident from Day 1 of the Leyland rescue, they have been opposed to the concept of a British car industry. Many of us believe that the decision to close Speke could lead to further closures and the breaking up of British Leyland. The attacks on Leyland and its work force, especially by the Opposition and sections of the media, will be welcomed by Tokyo, Bonn and other car manufacturing capitals. They do nothing for Leyland workers, except to undermine them and the British car industry. This is at a time when we are talking about the major problem of the penetration of the United Kingdom market by Japanese and other car manufacturers.
When the car industry came to Merseyside it was hailed as a turning point for the area's industrial future. Some of my hon. Friends who were members of the city council will recall that when Fords, and then Standard Triumph, came to Liverpool those developments were in accordance with the general policy of the then Government, namely, that regions with areas of declining industry and

declining job opportunities should be the places where there should be industrial development.
I feel that we have reached another turning point for Merseyside. It is a turning point for the northern regions as well as Merseyside. It appears to be one of the arguments used by the Leyland board and the car industry in general that the industry should be located in geographical centres. If that is to be the industry's policy, the future of the northern regions will be grim.
I do not believe that the decision will stop at Speke No. 2, and neither do many of my hon. Friends. The decision will be divisive. It will turn worker against worker. I believe that in many ways that is intended. It will turn area against area. That will be done in pursuing a policy of reducing employment in the industry. That is not the policy to be pursued by a Labour Government.
The House has the responsibility to examine in the closest possible detail all aspects of Leyland's decisions. Before any decision is made by the Government on the Speke No. 2 plant or on the corporate plan generally, the Government must go through every aspect of the plan with a fine-toothed comb, with a view to meeting two objectives. One objective is to ensure that the social consequences of those decisions are taken fully into account by the Government. The second objective is to see that British Leyland is not starting on the road to break-up and, therefore, missing the opportunities that are presented in fulfilling the objectives of a free-based British car industry.
I hope that even at this late stage the Minister will be able to say that the Government will do just that and keep in line with the policies and ideologies upon which the Government were elected.

11.47 p.m.

The Under-Secretary of State for Industry (Mr. Les Huckfield): I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, Garston (Mr. Loyden) for giving me an opportunity to speak on an issue which has understandably raised a great deal of concern. That is because the proposal to close Speke No. 2 assembly plant has some wide-ranging implications for British Leyland and for Merseyside. As my hon. Friend has


said, I am sure that on both sides of the House we all wish that the British Leyland management did not need to take difficult decisions of this sort.
That need is dictated primarily by the state of British Leyland, which, as the chairman of the company, Mr. Michael Edwardes, made clear in his speech to employees on 1st February, is critical. The company has made no secret of the fact that its performance has been unsatisfactory. That is reflected in the fall in British Leyland's market share from 33 per cent. to less than 25 per cent. last year, and to 21 per cent. in January.
I am glad to note that provisional indications are that British Leyland's market share for February has shown some signs of improvement. Nevertheless, one thing is clear: the company needs a period of sustained production accompanied by a major effort to reduce costs so that British Leyland can compete with other European manufacturers both at home and in export markets. This means adjusting capacity and manpower in line with realistic market prospects, taking account of the impossibility of recovering market share overnight and of the fact that British Leyland still has power and manpower levels geared to production on the pre-Ryder scale.
If the company fails to adjust capacity now and its market share continues to decline, the result will be that many more jobs will be lost than those affected by the closure of Speke 2. The collapse of the company would have unthinkable consequences for employment in this country. Not only is British Leyland dirt country's seventh largest employer; thousands of wage earners in supplier industries are dependent on the survival of the company. As Michael Edwardes has made clear, without realistic measures to improve production and reduce costs, that survival must be in doubt.
This is the task facing the management at British Leyland. It is the management which, in consultation with the National Enterprise Board, must decide on the specific measures necessary to restore the company's fortunes. The Government have accepted the view of the British Leyland Board and the National Enterprise Board that British Leyland's capacity, including manpower, must be brought into line with market prospects, but the

Government cannot set themselves up as an alternative manager of the company, so that means to achieve this must be left for British Leyland management to decide in consultation with the National Enterprise Board.
As my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister said in the House on 31st January, the Government have full confidence in the new management at British Leyland and are committed to supporting Michael Edwardes in his attempt to improve the company's performance. A start has been made. As hon Members may know, steps have been taken to restructure the company, and at the meeting at Kenilworth on 1st February Michael Edwardes secured the backing of employees for his proposals. At the same time the British Leyland board has submitted to the National Enterprise Board its corporate plan for 1978 outlining its proposals for a future strategy for the company.
It would, however, be difficult for the Government to justify both to this House and to the public at large further investment in British Leyland, especially on the scale that British Leyland is likely to need, unless the management can clearly demonstrate that firm steps are being taken to tackle the company's problems. Those steps may be unpleasant and, in the case of the proposal to close Speke 2, they have been made all the more difficult to take by the fact that the plant is located on Merseyside.
I fully understand what my hon. Friend said about the situation on Merseyside. It was because of our concern for Merseyside that we designated it a special development area in August 1974. This means that Merseyside gets regional development grants, Government factories, regional selective assistance, removal grants and grants to encourage the movement of offices and other service industries. In fact, Merseyside is among those places which are given the highest priority in the steering of new investment.
We estimate that Merseyside received about £302 million of regional financial assistance over the five years 1972–73 to 1976–77. The assistance under Section 7 of the Industry Act has safeguarded or created 40,000 jobs since 1972.
As my hon. Friend realises, we had a report from the NEB on investment


potential in the North-East and North-West. That report made recommendations particularly in favour of widening the differential in regional selective financial assistance in favour of special development areas. The Government also increased the maximum rent-free periods on Government factories to five years.
The role of the NEB has been strengthened following the establishment of an NEB regional board for the North-West. We have commissioned a firm of consultants to identify the types of business most likely to prosper close to the port of Liverpool. The Liverpool partnership area, which Speke immediately adjoins, will benefit from increased resources under the Department of the Environment's urban programme, and the greater powers to assist industry given to them under the Inner Urban Areas Bill. I could give my hon. Friend more details about my Department's small firms information centre in Liverpool and about assistance under Section 8 of the Industry Act.
Under the Hardman decisions on the dispersal of Government work from London, Merseyside probably comes out as one of the best areas. The bulk of the 4,000 dispersals to the North-West, nearly 3,000 posts, will go to Merseyside. The Hardman dispersals will inevitably take some time to carry out, but I am sure that hon. Members will welcome these additional office jobs and appreciate that this shows recognition of the serious problem.
There are achievements on the plus side. I shall name but a few. Vauxhall has recruited 2,000 workers at Ellesmere Port. The Co-operative Bank will provide 600 new jobs at hard-hit Skelmersdale. Cross International has announced a £2½ million investment programme with 200 jobs to come over four years at Knowsley. YKK is recruiting at Run-

corn. Tate & Lyle is investing heavily. Shell Chemicals has planning permission for a £50 million plant at Stanlow. These are a few of the projects in Merseyside.
In co-operation with the Manpower Services Commission, the Government have introduced a wide range of special schemes designed specifically to alleviate increased unemployment. They include the job creation and work experience programmes, the youth employment subsidy, the job release scheme, the temporary employment subsidy and the small firms employment subsidy.
It is estimated that over 41,000 persons, many of them young people, have been assisted by these measures in Merseyside. The temporary employment subsidy has been of particular benefit—with applications approved in respect of over 16,000 workers in the area.
It is difficult to satisfy my hon. Friend in a debate such as this. I fully appreciate the statement that he has made on behalf of his constituents. I and the Department understand the problems of Merseyside.
There are plans for a new 100-place skillcentre to be established in the Wirral and for a smaller 60-place centre for adults and young people in Liverpool itself. Both of these should be in operation by 1980–1981.
It is, as I have already made clear, for British Leyland management to take the difficult decisions necessary for the company's survival and, in this particular case, to decide whether to proceed with the closure after—

The Question having been proposed after Ten o'clock and the debate having continued for half an hour, Mr. DEPUTY SPEAKER adjourned the House without Question put, pursuant to the Standing Order.

Adjourned at three minutes to Twelve o'clock.